Bartholomew Roberts
Yes, it does - both in the original Constitution and the 16th Amendment. You can go to the link I gave you to read more about this. That is why I gave you the link; because having actually read the 477 or whatever obscene number of tax protestor arguments from the link given by Aaron Russo's movie, I really don't have much inclination to argue them individually now - and for some reason tax protestors LOVE to dredge them up one by one and sidestep arguments.
I do not know who Aaron Russo is. Never heard of him off hand.
I would simply refer to my first post; art 1 sec 9 applies here. And to answer my own question that you did not - it would be art 1 sec 9 that
prevents Congress from "passing a law" mandating an income tax on our citizens' private sector income,
by any foreign entity or private corporation.
What other law legal basis of prevention is there?
For example... you argued that the IRS was not a federal department. I point out it is an agency of the Department of Treasury. You then switch to the entirely different argument that the IRS cannot levy a tax on private sector income.
This has been well covered in cel's post describing (with references) the origin of the IRS, it's legal status as an entity, who it's employees are, paid by whom etc. If that qualifies as an "agency of the federal government" so could Nabisco. Or Kimberly Clark.
Tell me what exactly is private sector income? What type of income is regarded as public sector under that scheme and is that scheme in keeping with how the government traditionally looks at private and public? Better yet, don't tell me. Read the link and if you don't agree then I guess we're done here because I don't find the arguments (which I'm familiar with) that income tax is somehow unconstitutional convincing. My favorite is "The IRS won't show you the law that says you have to pay taxes" - which is totally untrue and is like the never-ending matroshka doll of tax protestor sidestep arguments. You show them the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and they just say "But what is the definition of income." You show them section 61 and they say "But that is gross income, not taxable income." You show them section 63 and they say "But where does it say unicorns must pay income?" and on and on and on.
Please yourself.
I think Molon Labe's earlier post described it well - it is exactly the type of word-twisting and sea-lawyering that antis use to convince us that the right of the people really means the right of the states to have militias.
Funny,
it is the very same Federal Congress, the same Congress that allows the continuance of the IRS and it's corporate government based racketeering known as the "income tax",
that actively and passively supports and allows the change agents in the Federal Judiciary, DOJ, BATF et all to continue this word-twisting sea-lawering away of the right of the people.
And when someone steals from you under the threat of force - or deception - you do not trust them on an issue of your rights -
and visa versa. Seems to me that using this example of yours represents a disconnect between the two. Not some disconnect of
my use of words or legal observations.
Yes, true. The IRS only engages you in tax court if you choose to go there by not paying the tax. You always have the option of paying the tax and suing for a refund in federal court. In addition to this option, you may also appeal the ruling of the tax court to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
You can not "sue for a refund" from the IRS in federal court. The appeals court has limitations on what basis you may appeal a lower court ruling. You are therefore limited by the tax court's basis for conviction - the
legal assumption that the rules and definitions of the tax court are legitimate and legally binding, and the tax court jurisprudence, rules of evidence etc.
