I'm going to go out on a limb and say what I think about the 2010 elections. If I turn out to be wrong, no great surprise. If I turn out to be right, well, that might be interesting.
My sense of things is that November, 2010 is going to be a huge surprise to almost everyone. I think a lot of real, plain, simple Americans are quietly shocked and dismayed and not about to forget by November. More than the polls show. More than the pundits predict. I think people are going to want to make an unmistakable statement. One that cannot be spun, as Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were spun to mean what they did not mean.
I think the Republicans could actually gain 80-90 seats in the House, and 12-15 seats in the Senate.
My biggest fear for 2012 is that Obama will read the tea leaves correctly and initiate a grand "adventure" (read war) to distract attention from what he is and draw on the deep well of patriotism (which I do not believe he shares) to convince people that we just cannot 'switch horses mid-stream'. I hope he doesn't, and I have at least some optimism that people will see through it and react accordingly when that time comes. But I don't see him wasting this tactic on the mid-terms, so a lot can change before this becomes a serious concern.
There. I've said it. Now we'll see.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Why Not Romney?
Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney won the 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate straw poll at the SRLC last week. I think it would be a mistake for the GOP to nominate Romney, because he will have to spend a great deal of time defending RomneyCare (or Mass. Care if you will), and I think the mere fact that he signed that bill into law in Massachusetts will cost him votes. GOP votes, Tea Party votes, and independent votes. Too many people will not accept his explanations as to why this forerunner of Obamacare was right for Massachusetts then and now, and why Obamacare is wrong. I think it would weaken the movement to make him the candidate.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
What did the 16th Amendment really do?
A lot of prominent people profess to be of the opinion that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution authorized the imposition of a Federal Income Tax on most forms of income, for most or all people. The words seem to be clear enough:
"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."
It doesn't appear to leave much doubt or wriggle room. However, the following excerpts of various Supreme Court decisions tell a very different story:
“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”
...
“[Taxation of "income" is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it”
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
The Revised Statutes of the United States and the Statutes at Large of the United States are the sources of the law codified. The Revised Statutes cover the period ended December 1, 1873. The Statutes at Large codified cover the period following December 1, 1873, and are published in the 35 volumes numbered 18 to 52, inclusive. The separate enactments carried into the internal revenue title, wholly or in part, from the Statutes at Large are 143 in number, exclusive of 93 statutes involving express amendment, reenactment, or repeal. The 277 Revised Statutes sections codified were derived from 21 basic statutes. The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2, 1939, therefore, has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16, 1938."
Preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979)
"[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, legislative draftsman for the United States Treasury Department, testifying before Congress on March 27, 1943
"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916)."
United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
"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."
It doesn't appear to leave much doubt or wriggle room. However, the following excerpts of various Supreme Court decisions tell a very different story:
“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”
...
“[Taxation of "income" is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it”
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
The Revised Statutes of the United States and the Statutes at Large of the United States are the sources of the law codified. The Revised Statutes cover the period ended December 1, 1873. The Statutes at Large codified cover the period following December 1, 1873, and are published in the 35 volumes numbered 18 to 52, inclusive. The separate enactments carried into the internal revenue title, wholly or in part, from the Statutes at Large are 143 in number, exclusive of 93 statutes involving express amendment, reenactment, or repeal. The 277 Revised Statutes sections codified were derived from 21 basic statutes. The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2, 1939, therefore, has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16, 1938."
Preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979)
F. Morse Hubbard, legislative draftsman for the United States Treasury Department, testifying before Congress on March 27, 1943
"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916)."
United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
To learn more about the truth of what this means to you, I encourage you to become acquainted with a remarkable site: http://www.losthorizons.com.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Democrats - the best hope for minorities?
Have you long believed that the Democratic party is the party of civil rights and equality? If so, I challenge you to watch the two videos at the bottom of http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)