Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

connecting a few dots

Expand Messages
  • one
    COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) at page 313............... The government of the United States operates directly upon the people, and not at all
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

      at page 313...............
      The government of the United States operates directly upon the people,
      and not at all upon the State governments, or the several branches
      thereof. The State governments are not subject to this government. The
      people are subject to both governments.

      "Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e., natural person), though
      by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships,
      associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees
      in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act ยง 2(1)..."
      Black's Law Dictionary 5th edition, p. 1028, 1968.

      "Person. 1. A human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is
      recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being...."
      Black's Law Dictionary 7th edition, p. 1162, 1999.

      Hence, federal and State statutes reach the corporation or other
      artificial entity by ascribing to them the rights and duties of a human
      being.
      A question arises as to whether the same rights and duties can be
      ascribed to both, since the human being has sacred rights and the
      artificial person has not any sacred right, except such as can be
      derived from the rights of shareowners.


      *The supreme court ruled in Pollock that the income tax enacted by
      Congress in 1894 was a direct tax, the act passed by congress wasn't
      apportioned, and therefore the tax was unconstitutional. The decision
      wasn't unanimous. The court split 5 to 4. Those in the minority
      believed a tax on income was not a direct tax, but an indirect, excise
      tax. One of the dissenters was associate justice White. *

      *Notwithstanding the decision was split 5 to 4, the results was that
      the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned was
      upheld. To overcome the holding of Pollock, Congress proposed the 16th
      Amendment. It was allegedly ratified. *

      *Subsequent to the alleged ratification, the Supreme Court does not
      agree on exactly what the 16th Amendment did:*


      *According to the Eisner court, the amendment removed the requirement
      of apportionment for the direct income tax. That is, direct taxes still
      had to be apportioned except the direct tax on income. *

      *According to Brushaber, written by Justice White who by that time had
      become the chief justice, the 16th Amendment prevented courts from
      doing what he claimed the Pollock court did--consider the source of the
      income to take the tax on that income out of the class of excises, to
      which he claimed it belonged, and placing it in the class of direct
      taxes. That is, a tax on income, regardless of the source, is an
      indirect tax; because the tax is not a direct tax, it does not have to
      be apportioned.*

      *Whether you agree with Brushaber that the tax is an excise tax that
      doesn't have to be apportioned, or agree with Eisner that the tax is a
      direct tax that doesn't have to be apportioned, without the 16th
      Amendment, the law reverts back to Pollock. *

      If the tax is a direct tax, all that would be necessary to have
      injunction or, at least refund, would be proof that the taxed party is
      a citizen. However, as citizenship is a basis for liability, the tax
      is being administered as an indirect tax, at least when the person is
      not resident in the United States. What is the privilege on which the
      excise is applied ? Privilege of being legal to work in the United
      States, the privilege which an illegal alien does not have.

      If there were a right to work, there could be no excise on working, no
      occupation tax.

      Our condition without a right to work is exactly the same as the
      condition of citizens of the USSR. And this did not come about by
      accident.

      Question: Who is Felix Frankfurter?

      Born in 1882 in Vienna, Austria, Felix Frankfurter emigrated to the
      United States with his family. Three previous generations of European
      Frankfurters were jewish rabbis; Felix's dad had studied for the
      rabbinate, but he pursued commercial interests here in the United
      States while his son Felix went to Harvard University to study Law.
      Felix stayed in Cambridge afterwards generally to teach Law, although
      he took short stints to New York City and Washington. Nominated to the
      United States Supreme Court by FDR in 1939, Felix Frankfurter was one
      of the most intellectually strong and intense, high-powered Spirits
      that was ever brought forth into this Estate -- and I admire him so
      much for his impressive calibre. Merely reading his Supreme Court
      rulings is a stretching exercise in intellectual gymnastics, as he
      compressed a well-blended train of ideas into a single sentence and
      selected an organically enlarging succession of words and phrases to
      swirl around his justifications and elucidations on both peripheral
      ideas and concepts turning on a central axis. Yes, Felix Frankfurter
      was very much a man of great and tremendous ability, operating on a
      slice of rare gifted genius so exalted in stature that he left all
      others biting the dust behind him -- but here is where I stop throwing
      accolades at Felix Frankfurter: Because Felix Frankfurter was a Gremlin.

      ...In April of 1913, that fateful year again, there was held a little
      known Conference on Legal and Social Philosophy; organized largely by
      Harold Laski, Felix Frankfurter, and his close friend Morris Cohen, the
      Conference was chaired by John Dewey; Keynote Speaker was Roscoe Pound,
      Dean of the Harvard Law School. Out of that Conference held in 1913,
      wrote Felix Cohen [son of Morris Cohen]:

      "...much of the social and philosophical consciousness of modern
      American jurisprudence derives."

      Felix Frankfurter was an admirer of imp Roscoe Pound, and openly
      propounded the redirection of American jurisprudence into what Felix
      Frankfurter called Sociological Jurisprudence (meaning in a sense, that
      Law was going to be now determined by the social needs of the
      community, and those old worn out relics of fixed Property Rights,
      Common Law rules, hard Constitutional pronouncements and the like that
      are difficult for Gremlins to massage, are just not anything that we
      need to be concerned with anymore). In 1913, Felix Frankfurter talked
      about a "great job" that would have to be done on American Law, stating
      that:

      "That it has to be done -- to evolve a constructive jurisprudence
      going hand in hand with the pretty thorough going overturning that we
      are in for."

      Felix Frankfurter admired Gremlin economist John Maynard Keynes and
      actually accepted his doctrines; Felix expressed recurring high remarks
      for a "socially sound taxing system" of high estate and income taxes;
      and while teaching at Harvard, he taught his students that:

      "The Constitution is not a fixed body of truth, but a mode of
      social adjustment."

      President Teddy Roosevelt once sent a letter to a newspaper in Boston
      attacking Felix Frankfurter for his Bolshevik orientation and sympathy,
      and came down on Felix for the assistance he was giving to Communists
      -- but an attack on Felix Frankfurter through Teddy Roosevelt is not
      necessary to see the imp in Felix Frankfurter (scan Felix's personal
      correspondence in The Brandeis--Frankfurter Connection by Bruce Murphy
      [Oxford University Press, New York (1982)]. Yes, Felix Frankfurter was
      a Gremlin; he taught their doctrines, he admired their philosophy
      (damaging others through the instrument of taxation never bothered
      Felix at all), he attended their conferences, he spoke at their forums,
      he offered to them his assistance, he expressed sympathy at any
      difficult position they would be in, and he also created the model
      image of an imp Jurist that the Gremlins wanted so much for emulation
      by others.
      from Invisible Contracts by Mercier
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.