Author Topic: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing  (Read 1128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,170
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
John Locke Warned Us of the Corruption that Power Brings & Now We are Seeing It

Posted By Sid Wolf on Dec 27, 2013 in Articles, Corruption, History, Politics, Tyranny | 4 Comments
John_Locke_by_Sir_Godfrey_Kneller,_Bt    



Share156 Tweet19 Share222 16 Email1

I recently finished reading the Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, in which he believed that government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.” His views on the corruption that power brings to our most cherished institution – our form of government – our Republic – follows.

Locke writes:

“The temptation is too great for those who seek power. For those who have the power of making laws, also have the power to execute them. In most cases these same individuals exempt themselves from obeying the very laws they make. In legislation passed by those in power also find ways to exempt their own property from the laws they are charged with enforcing on the rest of society.”

He further writes, “Despotic power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another, to take away his life, whenever he pleases. Usurpation is the exercise of power; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. When the President or the legislature makes not the law, but their will, the rule; and their commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of the people or made use of; to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; it becomes tyranny.”

Lock goes on to write, “the Constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society. When those in power hinder the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered. It is not a certain number of men, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating, and leisure of perfecting, what is for the good of the society.”

“When these are taken away or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered,” writes Lock. “It is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he, who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.”
 



“For that being in effect the legislative, whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed; when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended, and enforced, than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed.”

“When either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion; for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage, which everyone had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them.”

Is any of this ringing any bells? If not, then folks need to wake up and do the research on everything and everyone. Greed, control and power transcends and permeates our entire government.

John Marshall once said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”

We are reaching a point of no return if something isn’t done and soon. Numerous questions arose when Obama said, “we are the ones we have been waiting for” and “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” You might have to ask yourself who are these individuals “we” have all been waiting for? Furthermore, what does “fundamentally transforming the United States” actually mean? What will be “transformed”? Where, when and how will all this “transforming” occur and what will the effect of this “transformation” have on our county and the people? Just a few questions, maybe others can come up with more.

Remember it is not that “history repeats itself,” it is “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/john-locke-warned-us-corruption-power-brings-now-seeing/#Pbse1YEPgYGMBKXh.99
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,528
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2013, 09:35:07 AM »
John Locke and a LOT of others as well!

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2013, 10:23:22 AM »
There appears to be widespread agreement that our government is rampant with corruption. Its main function is now to serve itself and the ruling class rather than the citizens. The focus should be on what needs to be done about it. I for one no longer believe the election process will ever fix this problem. Election cycle after cycle results in a congress that has the approval of 6% of the people. That the elected officials are out of touch with the voters is no longer an explanation. The fact is, they don’t care what the voters think because they can insulate themselves or exempt themselves from the very laws they force on the people. They also obviously have the ability to insure re election for themselves regardless of their performance except in rare, and generally meaningless, cases.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,528
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2013, 10:32:33 AM »
There appears to be widespread agreement that our government is rampant with corruption. Its main function is now to serve itself and the ruling class rather than the citizens. The focus should be on what needs to be done about it. I for one no longer believe the election process will ever fix this problem. Election cycle after cycle results in a congress that has the approval of 6% of the people. That the elected officials are out of touch with the voters is no longer an explanation. The fact is, they don’t care what the voters think because they can insulate themselves or exempt themselves from the very laws they force on the people. They also obviously have the ability to insure re election for themselves regardless of their performance except in rare, and generally meaningless, cases.

I think there must be a process to undo just as there was a process that got us to where we are.  I think the first order of business in that process should be to get rid of the Marxist income tax and the IRS and return to the sort of taxation that our founders universally endorsed i.e. taxes on article of consumption only! That process is well underway already as there are currently bills before both houses of congress (HR25/S122) that would do EXACTLY that! (The house version will receive it's first ever vote in the Ways and Means committee this spring.)

After that is done we must repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments and work forward from there. At least that's the way forward as I see it!

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 71,170
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2013, 10:37:33 AM »
Vote EVERY member of congress out of office for three consecutive house elections and in 6 years EVERY member of congress will have been sent packing at least once.  This would send a clear message about who rules the country. :patriot:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,105
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2013, 10:41:08 AM »
Vote EVERY member of congress out of office for three consecutive house elections and in 6 years EVERY member of congress will have been sent packing at least once.  This would send a clear message about who rules the country. :patriot:

Term limits would accomplish the same thing. I have been skeptical in the past about such limits, but the institutional corruption and centralization of power in the Capital District have made them necessary, in my opinion.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2013, 10:43:48 AM »
I think there must be a process to undo just as there was a process that got us to where we are.  I think the first order of business in that process should be to get rid of the Marxist income tax and the IRS and return to the sort of taxation that our founders universally endorsed i.e. taxes on article of consumption only! That process is well underway already as there are currently bills before both houses of congress (HR25/S122) that would do EXACTLY that! (The house version will receive it's first ever vote in the Ways and Means committee this spring.)

After that is done we must repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments and work forward from there. At least that's the way forward as I see it!

I don't believe the beast will ever support starving the beast

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,074
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2013, 11:00:13 AM »
There will never be term limits. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. We no longer have a 'congress' in the classic definition. What we have is much closer to the classic definition of a Politburo, in which the incumbent almost always wins reelection no matter how hated they may be. The voting system in America is as corrupt and unreliable as you would find in Zimbabwe or South America.
 
Change will come because it simply has to. The children running the government are driving our nation into the ground. It simply cannot last and go on this way.
 
However, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, it is going to take some modern Bastille day, a cataclysmic, near apocalyptic event to shake those leeches in D.C. off of our blood. They are drunk with it and they will never let go until some force, either internal or external, leaves them with no choice. Just my opinion.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,528
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2013, 11:09:22 AM »
I don't believe the beast will ever support starving the beast

They will only if enough of us make it plain to them that it's our way or the highway!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,528
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2013, 11:16:41 AM »
Term limits would accomplish the same thing. I have been skeptical in the past about such limits, but the institutional corruption and centralization of power in the Capital District have made them necessary, in my opinion.

I disagree! We should re-elect, or not, based on the performance of each and every individual involved instead of setting some arbitrary limit as to how long one can serve. To do that requires that WE must pay attention to what they actually DO and not what they say at election time!

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2013, 11:58:47 AM »
Adopting policies whereby Congressional members are changed more often than is now the case is a good idea but is only half the loaf. We must reduce the federal bureaucracy also.

Congresscritters by and large have become little more than overpaid personal valets whose main function is to find out why Aunt Gertie's Social Security check is late. The real power lies with the unelected bureaucrats who issue regulations and make rules which affect us all. There are far, far too many of them and they wield far too much power.
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,528
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2013, 12:04:53 PM »
Adopting policies whereby Congressional members are changed more often than is now the case is a good idea but is only half the loaf. We must reduce the federal bureaucracy also.

Congresscritters by and large have become little more than overpaid personal valets whose main function is to find out why Aunt Gertie's Social Security check is late. The real power lies with the unelected bureaucrats who issue regulations and make rules which affect us all. There are far, far too many of them and they wield far too much power.

Man ore you ever singing off my sheet of music!

The unelected, and largely unfireable,  Unelected Washington bureaucrats are far more powerfully that the elected officials they supposedly serve!

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2013, 12:06:34 PM »
I think there must be a process to undo just as there was a process that got us to where we are.  I think the first order of business in that process should be to get rid of the Marxist income tax and the IRS and return to the sort of taxation that our founders universally endorsed i.e. taxes on article of consumption only! That process is well underway already as there are currently bills before both houses of congress (HR25/S122) that would do EXACTLY that! (The house version will receive it's first ever vote in the Ways and Means committee this spring.)

After that is done we must repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments and work forward from there. At least that's the way forward as I see it!

The Founders also universally endorsed taxation of the income from personal services, which was traditionally taxed as an excise tax on the privilege of exercising a particular profession or employment.  If you doubt me, then you should go read the opinions in the Income Tax Cases more carefully.

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2013, 12:12:50 PM »
I disagree! We should re-elect, or not, based on the performance of each and every individual involved instead of setting some arbitrary limit as to how long one can serve. To do that requires that WE must pay attention to what they actually DO and not what they say at election time!

That’s an idyllic concept but given the level of corruption in the system I don’t think it is realistic. Amongst other things, our crooked politicians have built into the process many opportunities to deceive the public by being able to vote against something for display purposes  when actually not opposed to  something, and vice versa. Also, candidates typically run on a platform of issues, not just one. A voter has to decide their vote based on their perception of what is the preponderance of importance to them, which will vary from voter to voter. Politicians know this full well and will use it to divide and conquer groups of voters. Politicians that have made a long career of it know how to game the system and artfully deceive the people to retain their position and is one of the reasons they need to be removed by any means necessary.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 04:53:28 PM by xfreeper »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,528
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2013, 12:27:36 PM »
The Founders also universally endorsed taxation of the income from personal services, which was traditionally taxed as an excise tax on the privilege of exercising a particular profession or employment.  If you doubt me, then you should go read the opinions in the Income Tax Cases more carefully.

What they agreed to is this from Article one Section eight of the U.S. Constitution:

Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Until the 16th amendment along:
Quote
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

And what they INTENDED is made very clear in The Federalist #21 by Hamilton to which there was no anti federalist response:

Quote
The Federalist No. 21
Other Defects of the Present Confederation
Independent Journal
Wednesday, December 12, 1787
[Alexander Hamilton]
To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING in the three last numbers taken a summary review of the principal circumstances and events which have depicted the genius and fate of other confederate governments, I shall now proceed in the enumeration of the most important of those defects which have hitherto disappointed our hopes from the system established among ourselves. To form a safe and satisfactory judgment of the proper remedy, it is absolutely necessary that we should be well acquainted with the extent and malignity of the disease.

The next most palpable defect of the subsisting Confederation, is the total want of a SANCTION to its laws. The United States, as now composed, have no powers to exact obedience, or punish disobedience to their resolutions, either by pecuniary mulcts, by a suspension or divestiture of privileges, or by any other constitutional mode. There is no express delegation of authority to them to use force against delinquent members; and if such a right should be ascribed to the federal head, as resulting from the nature of the social compact between the States, it must be by inference and construction, in the face of that part of the second article, by which it is declared, "that each State shall retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." There is, doubtless, a striking absurdity in supposing that a right of this kind does not exist, but we are reduced to the dilemma either of embracing that supposition, preposterous as it may seem, or of contravening or explaining away a provision, which has been of late a repeated theme of the eulogies of those who oppose the new Constitution; and the want of which, in that plan, has been the subject of much plausible animadversion, and severe criticism. If we are unwilling to impair the force of this applauded provision, we shall be obliged to conclude, that the United States afford the extraordinary spectacle of a government destitute even of the shadow of constitutional power to enforce the execution of its own laws. It will appear, from the specimens which have been cited, that the American Confederacy, in this particular, stands discriminated from every other institution of a similar kind, and exhibits a new and unexampled phenomenon in the political world.

The want of a mutual guaranty of the State governments is another capital imperfection in the federal plan. There is nothing of this kind declared in the articles that compose it; and to imply a tacit guaranty from considerations of utility, would be a still more flagrant departure from the clause which has been mentioned, than to imply a tacit power of coercion from the like considerations. The want of a guaranty, though it might in its consequences endanger the Union, does not so immediately attack its existence as the want of a constitutional sanction to its laws.

Without a guaranty the assistance to be derived from the Union in repelling those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State constitutions, must be renounced. Usurpation may rear its crest in each State, and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law, while no succor could constitutionally be afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the government. The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts has scarcely emerged, evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Caesar or by a Cromwell? Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in Massachusetts, would have upon the liberties of New Hampshire or Rhode Island, of Connecticut or New York?

The inordinate pride of State importance has suggested to some minds an objection to the principle of a guaranty in the federal government, as involving an officious interference in the domestic concerns of the members. A scruple of this kind would deprive us of one of the principal advantages to be expected from union, and can only flow from a misapprehension of the nature of the provision itself. It could be no impediment to reforms of the State constitution by a majority of the people in a legal and peaceable mode. This right would remain undiminished. The guaranty could only operate against changes to be effected by violence. Towards the preventions of calamities of this kind, too many checks cannot be provided. The peace of society and the stability of government depend absolutely on the efficacy of the precautions adopted on this head. Where the whole power of the government is in the hands of the people, there is the less pretense for the use of violent remedies in partial or occasional distempers of the State. The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. A guaranty by the national authority would be as much levelled against the usurpations of rulers as against the ferments and outrages of faction and sedition in the community.

The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it. I speak of it now solely with a view to equality among the States. Those who have been accustomed to contemplate the circumstances which produce and constitute national wealth, must be satisfied that there is no common standard or barometer by which the degrees of it can be ascertained. Neither the value of lands, nor the numbers of the people, which have been successively proposed as the rule of State contributions, has any pretension to being a just representative. If we compare the wealth of the United Netherlands with that of Russia or Germany, or even of France, and if we at the same time compare the total value of the lands and the aggregate population of that contracted district with the total value of the lands and the aggregate population of the immense regions of either of the three last-mentioned countries, we shall at once discover that there is no comparison between the proportion of either of these two objects and that of the relative wealth of those nations. If the like parallel were to be run between several of the American States, it would furnish a like result. Let Virginia be contrasted with North Carolina, Pennsylvania with Connecticut, or Maryland with New Jersey, and we shall be convinced that the respective abilities of those States, in relation to revenue, bear little or no analogy to their comparative stock in lands or to their comparative population. The position may be equally illustrated by a similar process between the counties of the same State. No man who is acquainted with the State of New York will doubt that the active wealth of King's County bears a much greater proportion to that of Montgomery than it would appear to be if we should take either the total value of the lands or the total number of the people as a criterion!

The wealth of nations depends upon an infinite variety of causes. Situation, soil, climate, the nature of the productions, the nature of the government, the genius of the citizens, the degree of information they possess, the state of commerce, of arts, of industry, these circumstances and many more, too complex, minute, or adventitious to admit of a particular specification, occasion differences hardly conceivable in the relative opulence and riches of different countries. The consequence clearly is that there can be no common measure of national wealth, and, of course, no general or stationary rule by which the ability of a state to pay taxes can be determined. The attempt, therefore, to regulate the contributions of the members of a confederacy by any such rule, cannot fail to be productive of glaring inequality and extreme oppression.

This inequality would of itself be sufficient in America to work the eventual destruction of the Union, if any mode of enforcing a compliance with its requisitions could be devised. The suffering States would not long consent to remain associated upon a principle which distributes the public burdens with so unequal a hand, and which was calculated to impoverish and oppress the citizens of some States, while those of others would scarcely be conscious of the small proportion of the weight they were required to sustain. This, however, is an evil inseparable from the principle of quotas and requisitions.

There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.

PUBLIUS


« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 12:28:23 PM by Bigun »

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2013, 01:34:09 PM »
What they agreed to is this from Article one Section eight of the U.S. Constitution:

Until the 16th amendment along:
And what they INTENDED is made very clear in The Federalist #21 by Hamilton to which there was no anti federalist response:





/snicker

A dictionary definition of "excise tax":
Quote
Excise

A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege.  A tax on the manufacture, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity, or a tax on the transfer of property.  In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except the Income Tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes).


I've highlighted the important part for you.

And, while you might be conversant with the Federalist papers, your facility with them is almost certainly less than that of the justices of the Supreme Court in 1895, but a short 106 years from the writing of the Federalist papers and the ratification of the Constitution.  In that respect, after having thoroughly canvassed the Federalist papers and all other manner of sources, in both of the two cases:  Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the Supreme Court held, with respect to the income tax on income from personal services:
Quote
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

158 U.S. 601 at 635.

In other words, those who were more familiar with the circumstances surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, including the Federalist papers - and the subsequent remarks and statements by the authors of the Federalist papers - had no trouble whatsoever concluding that the income tax as it applied to income from business, privileges, or employments - that is, deriving income from the performance of personal services - was nothing more than a garden variety excise tax.

Since the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay excise taxes, it necessarily follows that, within the contemplation and intent of the Founders, under the Constitution as originally drafted, Congress had the power to tax wages, salaries and other income from performing personal services.

As such, the only point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to permit Congress to levy a tax on income derived from real property and capital; it had no relevance to a tax on wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services because Congress already possessed sufficient power to impose such a tax.

You are more than welcome to argue to the contrary, but you're arguing against the Constitution itself, the understanding of the Founders and the authors of the Federalist papers, and the learned opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,528
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2013, 02:05:55 PM »
/snicker

A dictionary definition of "excise tax":
I've highlighted the important part for you.

And, while you might be conversant with the Federalist papers, your facility with them is almost certainly less than that of the justices of the Supreme Court in 1895, but a short 106 years from the writing of the Federalist papers and the ratification of the Constitution.  In that respect, after having thoroughly canvassed the Federalist papers and all other manner of sources, in both of the two cases:  Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the Supreme Court held, with respect to the income tax on income from personal services:158 U.S. 601 at 635.

In other words, those who were more familiar with the circumstances surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, including the Federalist papers - and the subsequent remarks and statements by the authors of the Federalist papers - had no trouble whatsoever concluding that the income tax as it applied to income from business, privileges, or employments - that is, deriving income from the performance of personal services - was nothing more than a garden variety excise tax.

Since the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay excise taxes, it necessarily follows that, within the contemplation and intent of the Founders, under the Constitution as originally drafted, Congress had the power to tax wages, salaries and other income from performing personal services.

As such, the only point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to permit Congress to levy a tax on income derived from real property and capital; it had no relevance to a tax on wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services because Congress already possessed sufficient power to impose such a tax.

You are more than welcome to argue to the contrary, but you're arguing against the Constitution itself, the understanding of the Founders and the authors of the Federalist papers, and the learned opinions of the justices of the Supreme Court.


You seem to have missed this part of Article one Section Eight to whit
Quote
... Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


And if what you say is true then why the need to include the words
Quote
...and without regard to any census or enumeration.
included in the 16th amendment? 

Were they,in fact, necessary or included just because the drafters thought them to be cute?
 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 02:08:19 PM by Bigun »

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2013, 02:38:55 PM »
You seem to have missed this part of Article one Section Eight to whit
And if what you say is true then why the need to include the words  included in the 16th amendment? 

Were they,in fact, necessary or included just because the drafters thought them to be cute?
 

I've not missed anything regarding the uniformity of excise taxes.  Here is what has been said on the issue of uniformity (from the Legal Information Institute "LII"):

Quote
Uniformity Requirement.—Whether a tax is to be apportioned among the States according to the census taken pursuant to Article I, Sec. 2, or imposed uniformly throughout the United States depends upon its classification as direct or indirect.504  The rule of uniformity for indirect taxes is easy to obey.  It exacts only that the subject matter of a levy be taxed at the same rate wherever found in the United States; or, as it is sometimes phrased, the uniformity required is “geographical,” not “intrinsic.”505  Even the geographical limitation is a loose one, at least if United States v. Ptasynski506 is followed.  There, the Court upheld an exemption from a crude–oil windfall–profits tax of “Alaskan oil,” defined geographically to include oil produced in Alaska (or elsewhere) north of the Arctic Circle.  What is prohibited, the Court said, is favoritism to particular States in the absence of valid bases of classification.  Because Congress could have achieved the same result, allowing for severe climactic difficulties, through a classification tailored to the “disproportionate costs and difficulties . . . associated with extracting oil from this region,”507 the fact that Congress described the exemption in geographic terms did not condemn the provision.

The clause accordingly places no obstacle in the way of legislative classification for the purpose of taxation, nor in the way of what is called progressive taxation.508  A taxing statute does not fail of the prescribed uniformity because its operation and incidence may be affected by differences in state laws.509  A federal estate tax law which permitted deduction for a like tax paid to a State was not rendered invalid by the fact that one State levied no such tax.510  The term “United States” in this clause refers only to the States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and incorporated[p.150]territories.  Congress is not bound by the rule of uniformity in framing tax measures for unincorporated territories.511  Indeed, in Binns v. United States,512 the Court sustained license taxes imposed by Congress but applicable only in Alaska, where the proceeds, although paid into the general fund of the Treasury, did not in fact equal the total cost of maintaining the territorial government.

footnotes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

504 See also Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 4.
505 LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U.S. 377 (1921); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884).
506 462 U.S. 74 (1983).
507 Id., 85.
508 Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900).
509 Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 (1945); Riggs v. Del Drago, 317 U.S. 95 (1942); Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589 (1931); Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101, 117 (1930).
510 Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927).
511 Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
512 194 U.S. 486 (1904). The Court recognized that Alaska was an incorporated territory but took the position that the situation in substance was the same as if the taxes had been directly imposed by a territorial legislature for the support of the local government.



The rates at which the income tax is imposed are geographically uniform and that is all that is required to make it a valid excise tax.

Why does the Sixteenth Amendment include the phrase "...and without regard to any census or enumeration."?  Because under the Income Tax Cases the income tax on the income from real property and invested personalty - i.e., capital - was unconstitutional because it was a "direct tax" that had not been apportioned.  Pursuant to Article III, section 9, clause 4, such a tax must levied "in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."  That is what apportionment means, that the direct tax be apportioned amongst the states in proportion to the population of each state.

Because the point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to undo the Supreme Court's holding that income from capital could only be taxed by a levy made "in proportion to the census or enumeration" the phrase "and without regard to any census or enumeration" was included in the Sixteenth Amendment to expressly negative the crucial basis for the Supreme Court's holding in the Income Tax Cases.  In other words, that language was crucial to making the income from capital taxable without apportionment; it was irrelevant to the income tax on wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services because that was already permitted under the Constitution as the Court in the Income Tax Cases made clear.


Offline andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,105
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2013, 08:35:09 PM »
I disagree! We should re-elect, or not, based on the performance of each and every individual involved instead of setting some arbitrary limit as to how long one can serve. To do that requires that WE must pay attention to what they actually DO and not what they say at election time!

Repeal the 17th Amendment, restore Constitutional limitations on the powers of each branch of government, and limit political contributions to individuals only: then term limits will be unnecessary. As of now, our government is bought and paid for by interest groups with the deepest pockets and the loudest mouths.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2013, 08:44:56 PM »
Repeal the 17th Amendment, restore Constitutional limitations on the powers of each branch of government, and limit political contributions to individuals only: then term limits will be unnecessary. As of now, our government is bought and paid for by interest groups with the deepest pockets and the loudest mouths.

Hands-down the most positive move would be repeal of the 17th.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,685
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2013, 09:30:58 PM »
[[ However, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, it is going to take some modern Bastille day, a cataclysmic, near apocalyptic event to shake those leeches in D.C. off of our blood. They are drunk with it and they will never let go until some force, either internal or external, leaves them with no choice. Just my opinion. ]]

Your thoughts addressed in my post here:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,124331.msg504792.html#msg504792

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,032
  • Dork
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2013, 09:37:34 PM »
Repeal the 17th Amendment, restore Constitutional limitations on the powers of each branch of government, and limit political contributions to individuals only: then term limits will be unnecessary. As of now, our government is bought and paid for by interest groups with the deepest pockets and the loudest mouths.

I agree with repealing the 17th Amendment; however, I am not so sanguine about limiting political contributions to individuals only.  Are you saying that no group of two or more individuals should be allowed to pool their resources and make their political contributions as a group rather than as two disparate individuals?  Wouldn't it be more useful to simply require that every individual participating, directly or indirectly, in any sort of collective entity, like a corporation, partnership, union, or other association, be identified with specificity, so that the vested interests that might lie behind any political contribution can be more readily identified?

Offline xfreeper

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,546
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2013, 09:47:28 PM »
Hands-down the most positive move would be repeal of the 17th.

OK please help me out a little on this one. I see it's a popular suggestion. I don't understand how it would be a big help. Not saying I disagree. Just saying I don't understand the approach. I'm sure there is a good explanation, I just haven't been informed yet.

OOOOK. Never mind. I get the concept.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment makes United States senators directly appointed by the state legislatures, as they were at our nation's founding, and representative of the will of each state and its citizens.  This action would check the federal government's proclivity to pass laws binding the states to unfunded mandates.  It would increase the sovereignty of the several states and restore true federalism back into our system of government.

Have to think about that a bit. My initial thought is it sounds good but I'm not sure the intended consequence would be the actual result. What's to prevent collusion between the state and federal legislatures and more corruption? One thing that occures to me is limiting the federal senate terms to less than 6 years. Too much time goes by in six years. A lot of damage can be done and forgotten in that period of time. It seems senators are less accountable as a result.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 09:57:17 PM by xfreeper »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2013, 09:55:25 PM »
OK please help me out a little on this one. I see it's a popular suggestion. I don't understand how it would be a big help. Not saying I disagree. Just saying I don't understand the approach. I'm sure there is a good explanation, I just haven't been informed yet.

Before the 17th was passed our local representatives went to the state capital and elected our senators to represent us in Washington.  Since they were dependent on the locals to elect them they actually had to pay attention to what was going on back home instead of what we have now - every six-years-lip service.  It also gave the rural counties a better say in their DC Senatorial representation. Today most senators receive the money to run for office from K-Street - not their constituents.  K-Street money - aka crony Capitalism - has pretty well destroyed the senate IMHO, while congressmen - being closer to their electorate  - are more beholden to answering to their voters than senators. 

A good example is Mitch McConnell. When he left college - not a wealthy man - he went to DC and has been there his entire life. Today he is worth 90 million dollars.  Ask yourself how a professional representative of the people grew that wealthy on the salary we pay our senators and congressmen?
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: John Locke warned us: corruption of power brings what we are now seeing
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2013, 09:56:39 PM »
BTW there is one state which does a bit of what we did before the 17th was passed. That state is Utah where they hold a nominating convention for the senate and an incumbent is not a done-deal. It is how they managed to get rid of Bennett and elect Mike Lee.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf