• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 10:32 AM
    The point was that it's not necessary for Congress to regulate pot in order to tax it, which is what I thought you were saying ("we must control it at the Federal level so we can tax it "). If Congress were to repeal all federal laws criminalizing or otherwise regulating pot it could still tax it (although the tax could be problematic if pot was illegal under state law -- see below). See The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), upholding federal taxation of things (intrastate sales of lottery tickets and liquor) that at the time were outside of Congress' regulatory authority. The reason there's no federal tax on pot currently goes back to Leary v. U.S., 395 U.S. 6 (1969), in which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 because it required persons subject to the tax to incriminate themselves.
    22 replies | 208 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 08:01 AM
    Untrue. The law's been clear for a long time that the federal power to tax isn't limited to things that Congress can otherwise regulate.
    22 replies | 208 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2019, 10:05 AM
    Agreed. But what kind of consent do you think the DOI was referring to? The unanimous consent of all individuals? The consent of a majority? The consent of a majority of elected representatives? True, but that's the risk in any representative form of government, including those adopted by the States and their citizens. Any objection to the powers given to Congress in the Constitution can also be made to the powers given State governments in their respective constitutions and to the powers given to city governments in their respective charters or (if you want to go farther down) to neighborhood associations in their respective governing documents.
    15 replies | 1782 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2019, 08:53 AM
    But the DOI wasn't declaring a state of anarchy in which each individual had to consent before the law applied to him. To the contrary, it declared that the colonies were free and independent States with the power to do all things such States can do. The consent it referred to wasn't the consent of each individual but rather a collective consent. And how the powers given to Congress under the Constitution were to be exercised was to be determined through a representative system in which the consent of the people is given indirectly. And since this was the same system that was used in each of the States, I don't see any conflict between the DOI and the Constitution.
    15 replies | 1782 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-10-2019, 07:49 AM
    Another myth.
    19 replies | 354 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-09-2019, 10:29 AM
    Politicians always say misleading things. Remember "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."? Even Ron Paul is guilty -- ""We should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up until 1913, it was 0 percent. What’s so bad about that?" -- ignoring the Civil War era income tax that lasted for 8 years. He has also claimed that the federal income tax was ruled unconstitutional during the Civil War period (to the contrary -- it was ruled constitutional) because there was no explicit authorization for it (there was). But the income tax is voluntary in the sense that the system relies on the disclosure by taxpayers of information about one's income and deductions that is solely within their possession. Yes, there are information returns that the IRS gets from payors of wages, dividends, and interest, but there are many other types of income that don't involve information returns.
    19 replies | 354 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-09-2019, 09:23 AM
    Not this voluntary crap again... "Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant. Judge Learned Hand, dissenting in Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F2d 848 (1947).
    19 replies | 354 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
General Information
Last Activity
Today 11:17 AM
Join Date





  • 10:57 AM - Hidden


No results to display...
Page 1 of 25 12311 ... LastLast












Page 1 of 25 12311 ... LastLast