Sonny Tufts
Member

The law has been hiding in plain sight: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=017/llsl017.db&recNum=54

Given that authorizing the federal government to tax was one of the most significant features of the Constitution, it's hard to see how the 9th Amendment has any application unless you're going to claim that there was some sort of right not to be taxed in 1789, which would be belied by the fact that people were already being taxed by the States. In addition, the 4th Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and since there's an explicit grant of authority to tax and since enforcement of any tax is necessarily and reasonably going to involve the ability to examine records, the 4th isn't violated solely by the taxing power.

Since I never suggested that it was, your changing the subject is duly noted. The point was that you were bothered by the fact that the Nazi flag was spread out on the ground, presumably for a photo op. But law enforcement does that all the time -- ever seen photos after a drug bust displaying all of the drugs that were seized? But you have no problem with Trump and his entourage walking to a church (which Trump had visited only twice before as President), having photos taken, using the Bible as a prop, and making no comments. Your aversion to photo ops is very selective, isn't it?

I see. When some guy drives a truck into the barriers outside the White House it's a false flag operation, but when someone torches part of a church it's done by "insurrectionists" (who have yet to be identified, btw), right? If you're so naive to think Trump (who's hardly known for his churchgoing) didn't do this as a photo op, you've got fewer brain cells than a bowl of tapioca pudding.

But you're assuming that the police and FBI are carrying out the orders of politicians, aren't you?

You mean like this?

Even if the flag was spread out on the ground for a photo op that wouldn't mean the government staged the entire event or that the flag couldn't be used as evidence. But conspiracy theorists are gonna theorize...

I guess it never even occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that brown person had it in the truck and that he is a total nutcase, not a government stooge.

It bears repeating.

Lake loses.

Another take on the story. https://www.courthousenews.com/kari-lake-election-challenge-fizzles-at-second-day-of-trial/

It seems you're oblivious to the fact that in Marbury the Court didn't rubber stamp Congress' unconstitutional attempt to expand the Court's original jurisdiction. So you're saying they do have the power of judicial review. Or they do only when you think they should and don't when you think they shouldn't. I get it... If this were true (which it isn't) the Court would never overturn an unconstitutional law passed by Congress. But it has, on many occasions.

So you're saying that although Congress is specifically authorized by the Constitution to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy, it somehow can't buy services from a university that it thinks is needed to support the army or navy. Lots of luck with that argument. Yet you were complaining that the Court never had the power of judicial review. Now you seem to be complaining that it doesn't strike down unconstitutional acts. Well, which is it?

You misunderstand the case. The issue before SCOTUS wasn't whether Congress could fund universities, but whether Solomon Amendment violated the universities' freedom of speech and association. No one was arguing that Congress can't fund universities, because it certainly can. Keep in mind that "funding" doesn't simply mean giving a bunch of cash to a university and asking for nothing in return. It also means contracting with a university for research or other services. In particular, the Solomon Amendment applied to funding provided by "contract or grant" by specified agencies, including the Department of Defense.

Indeed it was. Read Federalist 78. Hardly; TJ was just pissed at Marshall for the Marbury decision. Look at it this way: if a Democrat-controlled Congress and Presidency enacted a ban on private ownership of guns, you're saying the Court couldn't declare the law unconstitutional? I disagree. Since the justices have lifetime tenure they don't need to toe the party line. Did you notice how none of the Trump-appointed justices voted in favor of any of the frivolous suits Trump's supporters brought to overturn the election?

No, we need to teach more constitutional law history, wherever it's taught. The power of judicial review is embedded in Article III's grant of "the judicial power of the United States" to the federal courts, including SCOTUS. "Judicial power" clearly includes the power to do what courts do all the time: determine the law that applies to a given set of facts.

More evidence that civics isn't taught anymore.

Quoting Masie: Not quite. Seniors (and everyone else) aren't paying taxes on the money that goes to fund their own benefits. They're paying taxes to fund someone else's benefits -- someone older than they. While it's true that seniors who are collecting SS benefits and are still working are having FICA and Medicare tax deducted from their pay, the vast majority of their SS benefits comes from the taxes withheld from younger workers.

I don't give a flaming fart what you or anyone else on this site would conclude. The question is: what would a jury who saw and heard the witness conclude? Your statement "an incident that never occurred" simply shows your uninformed bias, and I will dismiss it as such. I suggest that the person who is charged with doing what Ms. Carroll claims would have the guts to appear in court and testify. True, there may be strategic reasons not to do so, but that's the risk one takes' Because it was irrelevant to the case. Good grief, what possible relevance does the name of Carroll's cat have to do with the case? Oh, I know... you must think that the refusal to allow Trump to introduce the name of Carroll's cat (Vagina) precluded him from making the following argument (a surefire winner, don'cha know): "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard that the plaintiff named her cat "Vagina". Now what do cat owners do? Why, they stroke their cats, don't they? Now isn't it an obvious Freudian inference that this means Ms. Carroll likes to stroke her vagina? And that, members of the jury, is what happened in that dressing room. Mr. Trump wasn't even there. But Ms. Carroll was, and she was stroking her vagina!"

You're talking about corroboration. There is no rule of law that says evidence must be corroborated in order to convict or (in a civil case) to find for the plaintiff. In a criminal case the government must prove all of the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case that plaintiff must merely prove his or her claim by a preponderance (>50%) of the evidence. But in either case there's no requirement that a witness's testimony be corroborated. If the jury finds the witness credible and if the defense fails to put on evidence contradicting the witness (or, as in Trump's case, fails to put on any evidence at all) the jury may very well find that the burden of proof has been satisfied. Now it's obvious that in either type of case (especially a criminal proceeding) corroborative evidence will be very helpful. But it's not absolutely required. In addition, there's a big difference between a civil and a criminal case (besides the burden of proof): in a criminal case the jury will very likely be instructed that they may not make any adverse inference against the defendant because he or she didn't testify. That's because of the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. But in a civil case the jury is allowed to infer from the defendant's silence that any evidence he would otherwise have given would have been adverse to his position. But don't take my word for it. Here's an article from that left-wing pinko rag, National Review :

I suggest you read it again: The author was obviously oblivious to the Springer case, which rejected the claim that the personal income tax was a direct tax.

I'll tell you who's dumb: someone who thinks a plaintiff's burden of proof should be higher where the defendant is a rich/wealthy person. She testified, and her attorneys put on other witnesses. You weren't in the courtroom to hear the testimony and observe the demeanor of the witnesses, so you have absolutely no basis to opine about the quality of the evidence. The jury heard and saw everything. And you think your uninformed knee-jerk reaction is better?

I'm smart enough to know that it's not a good idea to fail to put on a defense. Given that Trump didn't appear in court to rebut the plaintiff's story, its pretty obvious that the jury believed Carroll's testimony regarding sexual abuse and disbelieved Trump's deposition testimony, especially when he mistook Carroll for his ex-wife after claiming that Carroll wasn't his type. The grab-'em-by-the-pussy tape didn't help Trump either. I'd be interested in knowing whether Trump's attorneys advised him to testify and he refused or whether they advised him not to testify, figuring that on the basis of his deposition he was a loose cannon and would make a bad witness. Maybe they were as arrogant as Trump and figured they'd be able to easily discredit Carroll on cross-examination.

When the defense calls no witnesses it's much easier for a jury to find for the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence.

There wasn't one when I posted, just TV coverage. But here are a couple: https://www.fox5ny.com/news/donald-trump-rape-trial-jury-deliberations-verdict-tuesday https://www.cbsnews.com/news/e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-donald-trump-verdict-rape-trial/

I think the brief would have been more effective if it had squarely addressed and attempted to distinguish the situations in which unrealized gains are taxed, such as original issue discount and the requirement that securities dealers use mark-to-market accounting. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case it’s certain that the Moores’ appellate counsel will be grilled on these matters.

Following the three-judge panel's opinion the Moores asked for an en banc hearing (one heard by all of the 9th Circuit judges), but this was denied. Four judges dissented from this denial, and argued that realization is required for income to be taxed. Their dissent can be read here: https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Moore-En-Banc-Denied.pdf Given that SCOTUS has repeatedly said that realization isn't constitutionally required, I think this argument is a loser. There are several instances where the owners of a business conducted through an entity are taxed on the entity's income regardless of whether the owners ever receive a distribution -- partnerships and S corporations are prime examples. In addition, original issue discount is taxed. For example, if someone buys a bond for $2500 that will mature in the future and pay the holder $10,000 the annual increase in the bond's value is includable in income even though this increased value isn't realized. Having said that, I always get heartburn when Congress passes retroactive tax legislation. But I admit to being unfamiliar with Subpart F and the taxation of controlled foreign corporations and their shareholders, so I will resist pontificating about something that I know nothing about. Given the precedents upholding retroactive tax legislation, however, my hunch is that this argument won't fly, either. But there may be other aspects of the case that could require reversal.

Al Capone didn't, and he was no wuss. You know, if these agents are simply going to be jackbooted thugs who can't wait to shoot someone, why in the world would they need to have accounting skills?

Great song, great singing, and great guitar from Red Shea. RIP.