After studying the Declaration, the Constitution, and the history of the Constitution along with a good many of the Federalists Papers and conferring with many experts, I am in awe of the men who set out to create a government, a nation, based on the unalienable rights of the individual.
In the Declaration, it is stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."
Please note. Our rights are not privileges allowed by a centralized government. Our rights are those unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator, the rights of all free men and women. Those rights are, after intense battles during its formation, in the Constitution as the first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution is actually written with the intent of limiting the power of the centralized government. After all, our ancestors had just fought a war to get away from the oppression of a monarch - why substitute a group to act as a
monarch? The primary goal of having a centralized government is to band together the different States into a union in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare (well-being) of the people.
Every legislator takes an oath of office, as does every officer in the Executive and Judicial branches of the government. In their respective oaths, it expressly states that each must act in support of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Anytime any person in government does anything contrary to the
Constitution, he or she is violating the oath of office and is acting detrimentally to the welfare of the people of this nation. It is that simple. When inalienable rights are concerned, there are no gray areas - the Constitution and its amendments are quite clear.
Every politician during my life has had as a goal reducing income taxes, those dreaded internal revenue taxes. And, why not - everyone wants to pay less in taxes. However, each avoided, or is avoiding, the real issue. And, each is violating his oath of office.
The real issue is that reducing income taxes is NOT supporting the Constitution. It is continuing to stomp the heck out of the Constitution. You see, the Constitution expressly FORBIDS the applying of a direct tax on the people. We fought a war, in part, to get away from unfair taxation so it stands to reason this would be of paramount importance to the great men writing the Constitution.
Thus, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ..."
And, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Then, to make sure there wasn’t any chance of misreading the above clauses, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration
herein before directed to be taken."
So what does this mean? In a nutshell, it means any direct taxation done must be apportioned (based on population and number of representatives in the House), that (once again>Direct taxation of citizens' earnings within the states is expressly forbidden.
The 16th Amendment did not change this - it supported it. And, it doesn’t matter a whit whether or not the amendment was ever ratified. Even if it had been ratified, it still would only support the fact that directly taxing citizens of the States is unconstitutional. In numerous cases, the Supreme Court has held this conclusion.
Furthermore, several Supreme Court decisions clearly stated internal revenue taxation can only be ‘excise’ tax on earnings from corporations or other privileged (more or less 'government granted' sources of earnings) sources.
To put it simply, our people in government must support every statement in the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not state that taxes may be gathered by whatever means of misapplication the government (IRS) can get away with and that is what any legislator talking about reducing income taxes is doing. They want to continue directly taxing your earnings, not correct the falsehoods, as is the duty they are sworn to do.
And, with the subterfuge being used to take part of your earned money, your Constitution is being violated by those perpetuating the myth that your personal household income is directly taxable. It may be but NOT if you are a citizen of one of the 50 states obtaining your earnings domestically.
Now, you may have volunteered in effect to do so by filing previously because of governmental interpretations of IRS codes that misled you but you do not have to continue to do so.
What we need in Washington are knowledgeable people who know the Constitution, people who know the fallacies of the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) that have led people to believing direct taxation is required, and will support the Constitution and totally stop the taxation of domestic earnings of citizens of the different States.
Our inalienable rights, including those of livelihood, must be preserved. The people we now have in government do not care and are doing more to alleviate our rights rather than supporting the Constitution.
So, what gives? Why is the federal government perpetuating the myth of direct taxation on citizens' earnings and effectively getting away with it?
Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, I suspect the federal government thinks it has full power to govern far past the limits of the Constitution and its amendments. I think the federal government has "monarchitis" and that We, the people of this nation, need to do a "Monarchectomy" on the District of Columbia.