I propose a tax...on IRS personnels breathing!
The Declaration of Independence declares that man is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these is "life". Life most certainly includes feeding and clothing yourself, and protecting yourself from the elements. Supposedly, the Constitution was put in place, and in particular, the Bill of Rights, to protect this "right to life". Most certainly one of the most certain and important underpinnings of this "right to life" is the right to work in order to obtain the things necessary to maintain the right to life. And also, let's not forget our right to pursue happiness.
I went looking through the caselaw to see if the Supreme Court had anything to say along this line that would support my thoughts. In Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 1893.SCT.40144 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 148 U.S. 312 (1893) I found this:
"Obviously, this question, as all others which run along the line of the extent of the protection the individual has under the Constitution against the demands of the government, is of importance; for in any society the fullness and sufficiency of the securities which surround the individual in the use and enjoyment of his property constitute one of the most certain tests of the character and value of the government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." Id. @ ¶ 23.
In Powell v. Pennsylvania, 1888.SCT.40125 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 127 U.S. 678 (1888) (Notice the age of the case.) the court acknowledged something similar when it said:
"The main proposition advanced by the defendant is that his enjoyment upon terms of equality with all others in similar circumstances of the privilege of pursuing an ordinary calling or trade, and of acquiring, holding, and selling property, is an essential part of his rights of liberty and property, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court assents to this general proposition as embodying a sound principle of constitutional law." Id. @ ¶ 32.
There is another quote in Powell, supra, that affirms and pronounces limitations on government:
"The power which the legislature has to promote the general welfare is very great, and the discretion which that department of the government has, in the employment of means to that end, is very large. While both its power and its discretion must be so exercised as not to impair the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property; and while, according to the principles upon which our institutions rest, "the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself;" yet, "in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of public opinion or by means of the suffrage." Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 370." Id. @ ¶ 34.
Mr. Justice Field, who sat on the Supreme Court from 1863 to 1897, who by virtue of experience and learning would be supposed to have an excellent mind for the law as well of extensive knowledge of men's rights in the United States, said these things in his dissenting opinion in Powell v. Pennsylvania, 1888.SCT.40125 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 127 U.S. 678 (1888):
"I have supposed that the right to take all measures for the support of life, which are innocent in themselves, is an element of that freedom which every American citizen claims as his birthright." Id. @ ¶ 47.
"By "liberty," as thus used, is meant something more than freedom from physical restraint of imprisonment. It means freedom not merely to go whenever one may choose, but to do such acts as he may judge best for his interest not inconsistent with the equal rights of others; that is, to follow such pursuits as may be best adapted to his faculties, and which will give to him the highest enjoyment. As said by the Court of Appeals of New York, in People v. Marx, "the term ' liberty, ' as protected by the Constitution, is not cramped into a mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, as by incarceration, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to be free in the enjoyment of the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare," 99 N.Y. 377, 386; and again, In the matter of Jacobs: "Liberty, in its broad sense, as understood in this country, means the right not only of freedom from actual servitude, imprisonment, or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties, in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or vocation." 98 N.Y. 98.
"With the gift of life there necessarily goes to every one the right to do all such acts, and follow all such pursuits, not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, as may support life and add to the happiness of its possessor. The right to pursue one ' s happiness is placed to the Declaration of Independence among the inalienable rights of man, with which all men are endowed, not by the grace of emperors or kings, or by force of legislative or constitutional enactments, but by their Creator; and to secure them, not to grant them, governments are instituted among men. The right to procure healthy and nutritious food, by which life may be preserved and enjoyed, and to manufacture it, is among these inalienable rights, which, in any judgment, no State can give and no State can take away except in punishment for crime. It is involved in the right to pursue one ' s happiness." Id. @ ¶ 50-51.
"Be this as it may, certain it is that no State can, under any pretence or guise whatever, impair any such rights of the citizen which the fundamental law of the United States has declared shall neither be destroyed nor abridged. Were this not so, the protection which the Constitution designed to secure would be lost, and the rights of the citizen would be subject to the control of the state legislatures, which would in such matters be practically omnipotent." Id. @ ¶ 54.
Also in Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, supra, it was recounted that Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for the court, in Boyd v. The United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635, almost prophetically predicted what we have come to today when he said:
"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis." Id. @ ¶ 25.
And of course, we also know from McCulloch v. Mary land, 4 Wheat. 316, 431 that, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." So, to put a tax on our right to work would be an attempt to destroy our rights. For the purpose of this discussion, the right sought to be destroyed would the "right to life" itself.
Somebody send me an email. The IRS wants to come over and audit him and he wants to know what to do. I asked, why not read them the Fourth Amendment and ask them what they suppose would be on the "papers" he is supposed to be secure in.
As I was thinking about all of this, I came up with this proposed tax. I want to hit the IRS and the people that work there, and the Federal judges back and hard, for their mistaken concept that everything that comes in is income and that they have some kind of compelling governmental interest that allows them to run roughshod over everybody's right to life and to snoop around in their private papers. I propose that there be a very small tax of $.50 per breath be imposed upon IRS agents and Federal Judges. I propose that a special division be set up and equipped at the Treasury Department (I do not care which one.) that will send out agents that will make assessments of how many breaths IRS personnel and Federal judges are taking per minute in order that the proper annual tax for each individual may be determined. If it is learned that IRS personnel and Federal judges have involved themselves in any activities that increase their breathing rate such as exercise, that they be sent a deficiency assessment in order that they not be allowed to escape paying their fair share. I propose that if IRS personnel or Federal judges are unable or refuse to pay their "breath" tax that the special division seize and sell all of their property to satisfy the tax. As you may know, "The right of the United States to collect its internal revenue by summary administrative proceedings has long been settled . . . where, as here, adequate opportunity is afforded for a later judicial determination of the legal rights, summary proceedings to secure prompt performance of pecuniary obligations to the government have been consistently sustained." Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595 (1931). If IRS personnel and Federal judges do not have enough property to satisfy the tax, I propose that a levy be upon any other source of revenue they may have. And if that fails to satisfy the tax that IRS personnel and Federal judges simply are no longer allowed to breath. Under what I propose, if they are caught breathing after failing to pay the tax they would be breaking the law and would be punished accordingly; possibly a prison sentence in an air tight cell.
Who do you know in Congress that would sponsor this bill for me?
My proposed bill would be great if it happened, but is not likely. I propose that if you have contact with IRS personnel that you tell them about my proposed bill in order to illustrate the absurdity of what they are involved in. I predict that their response would be, `Nooooooo, you aren't going to tax my rights! Especially not my right to breath!' If they say that, then you get to say, `Well, what about you? Are you going to tax mine? Why am I not justified in having the same response? How are you justified in participating in what Mr. Justice Bradley in Boyd v. The United States, supra, predicted would happen?' Maybe there is someone that will read this that will have an opportunity to propose this new bill to a Federal judge. One possibility would be to send this in a letter to your Congressman or Senator and copy the IRS agent or judge.
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2661 W. 46th St., Loveland, CO 80538
BEAR ' S WEB PAGES:
To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
- The inhalation of air by a government worker could be taxed as in-come, but the exhalation could not.The exhalation must be covered by a "carbon" tax depending how much carbon dioxide is in the exhaled breath.And rather than waste another persons time with continous monitoring, this could all be done with a TV camera and computer; somewhat like the red light cameras that they have come to love so much.If the additional requirement was included to use only American made cameras and computers we would probably get the much needed boost to the economy.This would be a win-win program for everyone.Richard Gieser
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.