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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: 'shall'

Expand Messages
  • jm367
    Excises have been imposed on the exercise of natural rights. see footnotes to Davis v. Steward Machinery case. On occupation taxation. I don t agree with
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Excises have been imposed on the exercise of natural rights.  see footnotes to Davis v. Steward Machinery case.   On occupation taxation.
      I don't agree with it.  But the supreme court in dicta stated natural rights could be taxed like any other.

      What does unalienable mean ?  Does it mean immune from regulation by commercial regulation ?


    • Bob law
      Ok Jim, but there is another question which arises as a matter of legislative construction. I will reply ... [This is true enough wherein there has been an act
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Ok Jim, but there is another question which arises as
        a matter of legislative construction. I will reply
        within your text:

        --- jm367 <jm367@...> wrote:

        > Excises have been imposed on the exercise of natural
        > rights. see
        > footnotes to Davis v. Steward Machinery case.
        [This is true enough wherein there has been an act of
        Congress limiting it's authority within the "district"
        certain activities.(i.e. the placing of a license to
        operate a particluar profession.) Remember that the
        federal Congress has a limited jurisdictional
        authority so do not place it's authority outside of
        it's expressed limitations.]

        On
        > occupation taxation.
        But the supreme court in
        > dicta stated natural
        > rights could be taxed like any other.
        [This is why the issues of the 16th Amendment is a
        moot point, and now for the benefit of new people to
        the forum, considered as frivilous as it doesn't
        matter. First off, the Amendment didn't change or
        alter the Constitution in anyway, which is why the
        Supreme's stated that it offered "no new taxing
        authority other than what Congress already had".
        Second. in my estimation is the largest question which
        I haven't seen vocalized. That is: have they?
        According to the 16th, Congress has a "right" to tax
        income from whatever source derived....right, but the
        question is have they taxed income from whatever
        source derived? The absolute answer is no they
        haven't. Where taxing authority is concerned we know
        as a matter of prior court rulings, it must be done
        with clear and unequivocal language, and to date
        it(the taxing authority which reaches to most
        American's in their private capacity) is mysteriously
        missing from the public record. Except for those
        activities, for which a tax has been placed, and they
        appear in clear language within Title 26 U.S.C.A.and
        supported (enforced) within the regulations which
        accompny it. Most of the tim eit is the
        mis-application of law which gets us all into
        trouble.]
        Respectfully,
        Bob L.


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.