johnwk
Member

Trump was president when he obtained the classified documents, thereby he was entitled access to those documents to the highest levels, so this is a non criminal matter; and to reference Bill Clinton had also maintained personal possession of classified documents after his presidency had ended and he was cleared of any and all wrong doing, so regardless if he procedurally declassified them or not is not a legal matter, notwithstanding any procedural discrepancies. However, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence, none of who (prior to) served as a U.S. President, have all been in possession of classified documents and no investigations into them has been made public to date. What is Trump supposed to be guilty of concerning January 6th? Inciting an organized peaceful rally to publicly seek a redress of grievances for what was a clearly and obvious stolen election (by calling upon the (traitorous) VP to initiate an established procedure of contesting the election results) that ended up being hijacked by federal provocateurs and corrupted D.C. police officers, in concert with Nancy Pelosi and others, who namely themselves orchestrated a preplanned and yet failed plan to incite a riot to blame on Trump, but that really only caused minor damage to property, the murder of several unarmed protestors, causing injuries to many more, and ultimately destroying the lives of thousands. ...Ever heard of the Compromise of 1877 (and how the Democrats fought tooth and nail to maintain control of slavery while Replicans fought to put an end to it)? January 6th has nothing on it in comparison! This indictment makes the DNC appear weak and desperate, really pathetic. As this nonsense unfolds (and the allegations shreds into pieces) it will only further boost Trump's popularity...in the end though it will not really matter cause the DNC controls the vote counts and now they know without doubt that they can get away with anything criminal at this point, so they will skew the votes to favor their selected candidate for the win in 2024. Issues in Trump's favor to further consider: selective prosecution, prosecutorial misconduct, grand jury misconduct, affirmative defense--statute of limitation exceeded, procedural notice due process violations, affirmative defense--paying hush money is not criminal (and it will be virtually impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged payment pertained to manipulating an election), the key witness is a convicted felon and habitual liar.

...And FTX, and SVB, and...well you get the point.

What you edited out of my post in order to misrepresent the truth and facts are HERE. The truth cannot be changed to what it is not, Sonny.

True to a point, but that is certainly not the case here. And the courts don't have to waste their time (they get paid either way) hearing such (frivolous) arguments, because they are summarily dismissed. We’re back to Springer again, seriously? Again, Springer was subsequently narrowed by Pollock. Mr. Springer, a very wealthy attorney, was in Congress during that period. He was justifiably taxable under federal income taxation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKendree_Springer Besides being very limited in its scope of subject-matter, Springer was a poorly prepared, poorly argued income tax case that preceded the 16th Amend. Little debate on the matter is provided within this case as it would pertain to indirectly taxing the remuneration or pay of laborers, unlike in Pollock.

There is a fatal flaw in citing Springer as confirmation that a tax on income, including a working person’s earned wage, could not have been considered a direct tax by our Founders, and thus requiring apportionment. The fatal flaw is found in Justice Swayne's own words who delivered the written opinion. He states: "The very elaborate researches of the plaintiff in error have furnished us with nothing from the debates of the State conventions, by whom the Constitution was adopted, which gives us any aid. Hence we may safely assume that no such material exists in that direction . . . " Well, the assumption was wrong! In fact, there is evidence in the State ratification debates which do articulate characteristics which distinguish a direct tax from one which is indirect. As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that:

lolz, even when I was in elementary school I didn't believe the notion of fossil fuels that was taught to us, it just sounded so f-ing dumb, just the entire notion was stupid. Like what? When dinosaurs die they go to do it in some nearby mass dinosaur graveyard and then over the passing of time their carcass gets pulled down hundreds to thousands of feet under the ground (and even in the ocean) and then somehow their remains turns into an explosive chemical when refined? ...Then later on in life I came to the realization I was really, really smart for not falling for such crap. haha! Also, I believe there is a lot of fraud and misconceptions involved in our accepted history of dinosaurs. Also, it has now been shown the "dried up" oil wells in places like Texas are again pumping crude oil. It is more actually that crude oil is a byproduct of specific reactions taking place internally, similar to lava flows, earthquakes, eruptions, natural hot springs (which may release hydrogen sulfide a flammable gas), and the like.

I will defer to the CRS' determination on the matter over yours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States#cite_note-7 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf

The definitions of early legal dictionaries, scholarly economists, and jurists, see: 'capitation' and 'personalty' taxes. False ideologies, like yours, are why such matters were debated so vigorously throughout the Federalist debates, being seriously concerning to the unsettled masses. For example, just because some dickheaded, cocksucking, asshole, motherfucker name Anthony Stephen Fauci (who neither is nor possesses the certifications of a scientist, microbiologist, chemist, virologist, infectiologist, epidemiologist, or immunologist, but who is only a general MD practitioner that has never actually practiced on his own patients, despite all of his crazy and medically baseless experimenting he's authorized or performed on his unwitting victims) and William Henry Gates III (a college dropout, who is a seriously misguided technocratic eugenicist, a lying, punk-ass, dweeb that defrauded and stole the achievements of others in order to peddle his shitty Windows software, mostly on the backs of hardworking taxpayers through government contracted purchases) conspired one day to conveniently redefine was a medical vaccination is, does not factually alter the empirical definition of what is a vaccine. No, people can protest taxes for many, many reasons, in-fact for as many reasons as there are classes and types of taxes; in doing so does not establish them as being a "crackpot." The Legislature has even recognized this, for example, in their ratification of the RFRA, i.e., 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–3. The matter of taxing individual pay has remained one of the most contentious issues throughout the last century, so much so that the IRS constantly either demands or begs of Congress to amend or implement new statutes to deter, to instill fear upon, the mass of taxpayers to overwhelm them from so much as doubting anything outside of what the IRS preaches to them upon each passing tax season. ...And yet SCOTUS to date, has steadfastly avoided granting certiorari to all such tax cases even though such cases meet the necessary requisites for their review and of which have numbered in scores upon scores of over the decades...which is especially worrisome being that the reality is that SCOTUS has heard and reheard other tax matters over and over and over throughout the centuries, and many of those cases subject-matter that the the Court had agreed to review were plain ludicrous, obviously misguided, or otherwise flagrant or illogical in premise, e.g., federal judge salaries' were wholly exempt from income taxation until 1939 (O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939); or even the findings in Pollock, i.e., that because the source of the tax was constitutionally exempted from direct taxation so also was the gains and profits realized from those sources.) (Honestly, I am of the belief that SCOTUS dares not touch the taxing of wages issue for they know that they will be massively buried by nation wide amicus curiaes from every side of the debate, so much so that it will take their staff years and years to summarize them all--that is aside from the fact that they are likely very aware of the truth about income taxes laws being grossly misapplied, along with the incessant abuses being committed by the IRS and state taxing boards, and that the current taxing system is necessary to the continued financial interests of the Federal Reserve ponzi-scheme.)

You are absolutely correct if you are referring to today's federal tax upon the sale of property which every wage earner has in their labor. In fact, there is clear and convincing evidence found in the State ratification debates by our Founders which do articulate characteristics which distinguish a direct tax from one which is indirect. As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that: “In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts , which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467, Wilson And this very characteristic identifying an indirect tax as a voluntary payment when buying articles of consumption, is again articulated, and more in depth during the Connecticut State Ratification debates by Oliver Ellsworth, who provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.

Pollock. So says the pot to the kettle. Ohhh, yea, that case wherein "the income of a husband by way of salary and attorney's fees is taxable to him." Sure, sure. Gotcha! The source is not ever taxable, only the gain or profit that becomes severed from it--as constitutional 'income.' It's not the source that is the subject of income taxation.

A tax upon the national workforce is by definition a 'direct tax.'

Off the top: 1. The income tax was imposed on the basis of generating revenue to support war efforts; however, the USA has not declared war since 1942. Moreover, it has gone on to be misappropriated in order to sustain myriads of social justice programs that are entirely outside of the powers of the federal government--amendments to our Constitution are otherwise necessary. 2. Mandatory payroll withholdings violate the 5th Amend., as it's the taking of personal property without just compensation and solely to the benefit of the government--the taxpayer forever looses the ability to collect investment interest on the withheld sums, while the government does and neglects to proffer it as either a tax deduction or refund of any type. 3. State income taxes further subjugate individual rights and constitutional protections as states imposing income taxes do so upon the whole amount due (firstly) to the federal government, yet without any prudent consideration that a portion of that sum was never at any point in time in the possession or control of the taxpayer--state income taxes should only tax the remaining sum that was precedently taken by the federal government. Otherwise, taxpayers are being doubly taxed upon monies that was of no practicable benefit to them other than for the purpose of being taxed to the benefit and advantage of the state and federal governments (i.e., the government is using these withholdings to generate pooled investment interest throughout the year and then at the end of the year collects taxes from these sums from each individual taxpayer.) Bonuses:

With regard to our Constitution’s rules regarding apportionment, the two formulas which govern apportionment are: States’ population ---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE Total U.S. Population Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:

OMG, just stop with that old tired nonsense! Springer was an attorney and bondholder who reported $50,798 in income back then. The issue in Springer was again "income, gains, and profits" during the year 1865. $50,798 with factoring in today's inflation is over $1.5 million. Ergo, Springer was not a laborer, craftsman, or farmer, or such anything. Pollock modified the findings of Springer; and the (since overruled) Hilton case was nothing other than a silly ass argument over taxes being levied upon horse buggies without apportionment--it has no bearing in modern society, period. The Revenue Act of 1864 unequivocally stated: "Section 116 of the Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever" and raised its tax rates from the 1862 Act that started out at 3% over $800 (which is now the equivalent of more than $24,000) to 5% above $600 (which is over $18,000 in today's dollars.) * Notice the similarities between the above and the 16th Amend., i.e., "gains, profits, and income ... derived from any kind" and "from any other source whatever" versus "the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived," hence, properly as an indirect tax it's not being 'directly' imposed upon whatever the source might be, but 'indirectly' upon only the 'gains or profits' as "incomes," being derived from whatever the sources may be. The distinction here is whether or not a positive financial severing had occurred throughout a given tax-year.

And you eat the lies which you have been feed, and then regurgitate those lies.

Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare: ”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Now, let us keep in mind that on June 17th, 1909, Senator Brown offered the following Joint Resolution (S. J. R. 39) to amend the Constitution relative to TAXES ON INCOMES: ”Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ___ SENATE, June 17, 1909, Page 3377

I see you are back to applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to the meaning of our Constitution: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.” But, however hard you try, the words in the Sixteenth Amendment remain the same and do not say:

Correct. So?

Well, I see you quoted the amendment correctly and it certainly does not say: ”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Why didn't you answer the question? How do you arrive at the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment was intended to allow a tax on earned wages? Today's federal tax on earned wages is not in harmony with the original objective of adopting the Sixteenth Amendment which was to allow for a federal tax on “unearned” incomes as can be contrasted from “earned” wages. Today’s federal tax on a working person’s earned wages takes the form of a direct tax, is not being apportioned, and thus violates the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned. Finally, and in respect of the Sixteenth Amendment and calculating a federal tax on incomes, “ . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Today's federal tax on earned wages is not in harmony with the original objective of adopting the Sixteenth Amendment which was to allow for a federal tax on “unearned” incomes as can be contrasted from “earned” wages. Today’s federal tax on a working person’s earned wages takes the form of a direct tax, is not being apportioned, and thus violates the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned. Finally, and in respect of the Sixteenth Amendment and calculating today’s federal tax on earned wages “ . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

What I acknowledged was the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment as being the law. And now you ask "What remains to discuss?" I stated that in the title of the thread "Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution", and in the OP:

And? Where have I suggested the Sixteenth Amendment is not the law? Did I not write the following in the OP? What does you post have to do with what I wrote? JWK Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

What "change"? Where is the constitutional amendment repealing, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which states: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”?

I believe the poster is referring to the often cited case Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881) which upheld a tax on "income" as not being direct. But the fatal flaw in citing Springer as confirmation that a tax on income could not have been considered a direct tax by our Founders, and thus requiring apportionment, is found in Justice Swayne's own words: "The very elaborate researches of the plaintiff in error have furnished us with nothing from the debates of the State conventions, by whom the Constitution was adopted, which gives us any aid. Hence we may safely assume that no such material exists in that direction . . . " Well, the assumption was wrong! In fact, there is evidence in the State ratification debates which do articulate characteristics which distinguish a direct tax from one which is indirect.

In regard to the question (". . . why is the capitalist allowed, and rightly so, to deduct their capital investments from money coming in, to arrive at their taxable income as per Eisner, while the wage earner is not" ) you say the Supreme Court and every other court in the country . . . cut for brevity. Your answer ignores how one arrives at taxable income as stated in Eisner by our Supreme Court: "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 ; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 ), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." . The bottom line is, wage earners, who work for their money, do make capital outlays and various kinds of investments and other outlays, which are essential to make their labor possible, and reading through the Eisner case, those who have money working, as opposed to those who work for their money, get to deduct from money coming in as quoted above. What is the reasoning as to why the same rules do not apply to the wage earner who works for their money?

I too do not demonize the investor. I follow the rule of law, and not what some pretend it means. Having said that, and to confirm what you say above about the investor allegedly not doing anything to earn a profit, see the following defining “profit” which is found in my 1925-26 Bouviers Law Dictionary: "This is a word of very extended signification. In commerce, it means the advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. In distinction from the wages of labor, it is well understood to imply the net return to the capital of stock employed, after deducting all the expenses, including not only the wages of those employed by the capitalist, but the wages of the capitalist himself for superintending the employment of his capital or stock. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nat. b. i. c. 6 and M’Culloch’s Notes; Mill, Polit. Econ. C. 15" That quote inspired my thinking a long time ago about the wage earner's investments and outlays made, that make the wage earner's labor possible when selling the property each has in their own labor. Should we not apply the same rules for deductions to compute a wage earner's profit as the capitalist rightfully uses to arrive at a profit, and or gain? JWK

Your post has nothing to do with what I actually wrote in the OP. In any event, and with regard to the meaning of "incomes" as it appears in the Sixteenth Amendment, we find that meaning in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920): "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 ; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 ), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." So, we now learn that all money that comes in is not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, but only that portion which represents a “profit” or “gain”. Keep in mind also that “profits“ or “gains, are calculated by deducting all necessary expenses and outlay from gross receipts …the remaining portion being “profit” and or “gain“!