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

Constitutional Interpretation Applicable to Income Tax

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    The State also contends that it has absolute power to put any burdens it pleases [Still the same ole, same ole… Since the state believes and proclaims itself
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 10, 2013

      The State also contends that it has absolute power to put any burdens it pleases [Still the same ole, same ole… Since the state believes and proclaims itself to be sovereign what else could we expect.] on the selection of electors 29*29 because of the First Section of the Second Article of the Constitution, providing that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." to choose a President and Vice President. There, of course, can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors. But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution. [How about no direct taxes?? How about the right to be secure in your papers that have what you make written on them??] For example, Congress is granted broad power to "lay and collect Taxes,"[2] but the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination.[3] [Where Irwin Schiff got the idea for a 5th Amendment return; no doubt.] Nor can it be thought that the power to select electors could be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands that specifically bar States from passing certain kinds of laws. Clearly, the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were intended to bar the Federal Government and the States from denying the right to vote on grounds of race and sex in presidential elections. And the Twenty-fourth Amendment clearly and literally bars any State from imposing a poll tax on the right to vote "for electors for President or Vice President." Obviously we must reject the notion that Art. II, § 1, gives the States power to impose burdens on the right to vote, where such burdens are expressly prohibited in other constitutional provisions. We therefore hold that no State can pass a law regulating elections that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's command that "No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 US 23, 29 - Supreme Court 1968


      Call me at: 720-675-7230

      On Skype: legalbear

      Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

      Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:


      My blog: legalbearsblog.com

      Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

      (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.