Some of Droopy's thoughts on the Constitution

[_Angus McAwesome]

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the U.S. tax code, not the politician/lawyers who wrote it.

Which is why the USCOTUS has upheld tax law several times over the "rights" of various churches concerning tax law, right?

Moron.

2. The entire U.S. tax code should be flung into the nearest dumpster and replaced with something constitutional in its own right.

Those tax laws are written with in the framework of powers granted the government under the US Constitution, moron. In any case, who gives a crap if you think everything should be flung out? I certainly don't and I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.

The Church has taken strong stands on social issues since the ERA, and nothing has happened.

Maybe not to the LDS church (yet), but it has happened to other churches. If it can happen to them it can certainly happen to LDS. As I said, LDS has a small army of lawyers working to make sure the church doesn't get itself into hot water legally.

Your claim that there is something in the tax laws prohibiting them from doing so is clearly infirm.

Yet you can't give anything other than your worthless opinion to back that up. You can't cite the US Constitution, you can't cite US Tax Code, you can't cite relevant case law... Face it, Drippy, the only thing you have to offer as a rebuttle is your poorly educated, woefully misinformed, and intentionally ignorant OPINION.

Go back to MAD and ask them for help again. Maybe next time they might do a better job writing your argument for you.

[_Jason Bourne]

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the U.S. tax code, not the politician/lawyers who wrote it.

But the 16th amendment grants congress the power to levy income tax. Thus the tax code does have teeth in it in regards to who is taxed and not taxed. Exemption from tax is given under Sec. 501 to certain types of entities so longs as they stay in the limits of the rules. My quick read is that the Church is staying within these limits.

2. The entire U.S. tax code should be flung into the nearest dumpster and replaced with something constitutional in its own right.

I don't disagree other than the current law is constitutional though over bearing and egregious.

The Church has taken strong stands on social issues since the ERA, and nothing has happened. Your claim that there is something in the tax laws prohibiting them from doing so is clearly infirm.

As we can see from the law I posted if the Church funds a campaign or uses resources seemingly to directly influence legislation it could run afoul of the rules. My guess is they are quite well within them and are sure to stay that way. As the comment that was made that the Church uses lawyers to take advantage of loopholes, well that is the game I guess that our government has set up. One can always write their congressman if they don't like it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey Angus

I know you do not like Droopy but how about stopping the name calling and telling him to leave. He has as much right to post here as you.

[_Angus McAwesome]

I know you do not like Droopy but how about stopping the name calling

Well, he is a moron. That's not name calling so much as calling a spade a spade.

and telling him to leave.

I told him to go back over to MAD and ask for help with his next argument. I never told him to leave the board. I guess reading comprehension isn't your thing.

[_Jason Bourne]

I know you do not like Droopy but how about stopping the name calling

Well, he is a moron. That's not name calling so much as calling a spade a spade.

and telling him to leave.

I told him to go back over to MAD and ask for help with his next argument. I never told him to leave the board. I guess reading comprehension isn't your thing.

Scuse me dude. I missed that. My apologies.

You are a touchy fellow.

[_Droopy]

But the 16th amendment grants congress the power to levy income tax. Thus the tax code does have teeth in it in regards to who is taxed and not taxed. Exemption from tax is given under Sec. 501 to certain types of entities so longs as they stay in the limits of the rules. My quick read is that the Church is staying within these limits.

Yes, but consider that the 61th amendment, ratified in 1913, drastically altered the orginal provisions of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I, Section. 9.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


After this, the road lay open for literally unlimited plundering of the American citizenry for the government's own purposes, most of these, over time, taking the form of the buying of votes through the creation of dependency among selected socio-economic and socio-cultural classes of citizens, and the ever expanding use of the tax code as the primary engine of social engineering, the rewarding of political friends, and punishing of political enemies.

I think whether or not something is "constitutional" or not depends, to a great extent, on the definition and understanding of the term. Direct taxation is "constitutional" in a technical sense (the 16th amendment makes it so), but may not be "constitutional" in the broader sense of being hamonizable with the Constitution as a whole. That is: Congress can amend the constitution, but only within certain parameters prescribed and delimited by the constitution itself. Hence, slavery and Jim Crow were "constitutional" in a technical sense (the political classes of the age agreed that they were), while being wholly out of harmony with the actual text of that document as a matter of the explicit and implicit principles set out in that document. This had to be rectified at a later date because of the obvious inconsistency.

Congress could pass an amendment making the torturing of puppies constitutional in a purely legalistic, technical sense. The torturing of puppies is now constitutional because we, Congress (or a majority of the Supreme Court, says it is). In the sense of the original intent (of which Angus cares nothing, based upon previous posts) of the text and the much broader, general principles embedded within it, this may not be the case at all.

The problems with the income tax, and why the Founders denied the government the power to levy such, ("the power to tax is the power to destroy"), have all come to pass and are still evolving. The "right" to an abortion is constitutional, even though no such concept exists in the constitution at all.

And there we encounter the perennial problem of law vs. lawfulness; of law, or legalism, trumping the rule of law in the name of desired social outcomes.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Yes, but consider that the 61th amendment, ratified in 1913, drastically altered the orginal provisions of the Constitution.

Which would be the entire point of the Amendment process, Drippy. By your idiot logic, since the 16th Amendment altered the Constitution and altering the Constitution is bad, then Amendments 11 through 27 are all bad. Guess we should go back to owning slaves, not letting women or blacks vote, repeal the 21st Amendment briefly to allow Prohibition again before repealing the 18th Amendment, etc...

Moron.

After this, the road lay open for literally unlimited plundering of the American citizenry for the government's own purposes, most of these, over time, taking the form of the buying of votes through the creation of dependency among selected socio-economic and socio-cultural classes of citizens, and the ever expanding use of the tax code as the primary engine of social engineering, the rewarding of political friends, and punishing of political enemies.

Holy hyperbole, Batman! The Joker's going to use the Slippery Slope Fallacy on Gotham!

I mean, you do realize that the primary reason for the 16th Amendment was so that the Federal government could afford to "pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" as outlined in Article One, Sec 8 of the US Constitution, right? In any case, you sound exactly like any number of idiots that tries to challenge paying their taxes by saying the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional only to get slapped down by Supreme Court for being an idiot.

But while we're at it, let's see some examples of "buying of votes through the creation of dependency among selected socio-economic and socio-cultural classes of citizens" and "rewarding of political friends, and punishing of political enemies" through the imposition of taxes.

I think whether or not something is "constitutional" or not depends, to a great extent, on the definition and understanding of the term.

I much prefer leaving that up to the United States Supreme Court and not to some dingbat on the internet... Once again, who cares what your opinion is on something being constitutional or not. That is something for the Supreme Court and Congress to decide as it's their job under the US Constitution.

The problems with the income tax, and why the Founders denied the government the power to levy such, ("the power to tax is the power to destroy"), have all come to pass and are still evolving. The "right" to an abortion is constitutional, even though no such concept exists in the constitution at all.

So now you're down to quoting John Marshall out of context. You do understand that Joh Marshall said that as part of his decision as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the McCulloch vs Maryland case where Supreme Court slapped down the States of Maryland for trying to tax notes issued by the Second Bank of the United States. When John Marshall said "The power to tax is the power to destroy" he was talking about how the US Government should not be held dependant on the states tax revenue or held taxable by the states, dumbass.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think whether or not something is "constitutional" or not depends, to a great extent, on the definition and understanding of the term. Direct taxation is "constitutional" in a technical sense (the 16th amendment makes it so), but may not be "constitutional" in the broader sense of being hamonizable with the Constitution as a whole. That is: Congress can amend the constitution, but only within certain parameters prescribed and delimited by the constitution itself. Hence, slavery and Jim Crow were "constitutional" in a technical sense (the political classes of the age agreed that they were), while being wholly out of harmony with the actual text of that document as a matter of the explicit and implicit principles set out in that document. This had to be rectified at a later date because of the obvious inconsistency.

Well I am not an expert on constitutional law. I am not a fan of the atrocious income tax code either. However, it seems that the ability the framers left for future citizens to amend the constitution does make the 16th amendment constitutional, which you state above. Even if is seems radically opposed to the original intent I am not sure that matters. Amendments are often used to change a previous document to say something entirely difference than is said originally. Owners of businesses amend shareholder agreements to radically change them, individuals may amend a will and expunge a original beneficisry from it. So your comments that congress can amend the constitution only within certain parameters that are within the constitution itself seems more your opinion than fact. Do you have some reason for reaching this conclusion?

One question. The Supreme court can declare law unconstitutional. I assume however if the constitution is amended they cannot declare an amendment unconstitutional. Thus the court could not over turn the 16th amendment. Rather they can rule on whether the application of current tax law, or portions of such tax law, are unconstitutional. Correct?

[_Angus McAwesome]

One question. The Supreme court can declare law unconstitutional. I assume however if the constitution is amended they cannot declare an amendment unconstitutional. Thus the court could not over turn the 16th amendment. Rather they can rule on whether the application of current tax law, or portions of such tax law, are unconstitutional. Correct?

Basically. Congress (both houses) or the state legislatures can call for an amendment proposal (they need a minimum of 2/3rds in favor in both cases). Then they have a convention made up a representatives from each state (not congress critters specifically, but they could be the ones the states send) to hammer out the amendment proposal. Then they vote on it and if at least 3/4s of the delegates of the convention vote in favor, we end up with a new amendment. The President has no say in the matter and no veto power over it. The US Supreme Court has no say in it until after the amendment passes and then they get to decide on any cases involving an amendment/s and end up interpreting how a given amendment applies.

That's the cliff notes. The actual process is a bit more complicated. If you really want the full story, go read up on Article Five of the US Constitution and on Amendments 11 through 27 for specific cases.