Is taxing a right lawful?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you ask me, the devil in the details is the word "regulated." That seems to be interpreted by some people to mean "unregulated."

The constitution is thought of as the law of the land, only it isn't. Every state has a constituion. They're all a little different. A constitution is merely how the government is organized and even then, it's pretty sketchy, and it probably should be. Otherwise you would have a government you might describe as Byzantine. But in any event, my trust in the system is the same as it's always been, neither higher nor lower. I lived through Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush. The republic will survive.

By the way, who gets to decide who an enemy is?
 
See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). "The power to tax is the power to destroy..." in which Chief Justice Marshal refused to allow the state of Maryland to tax the Second Bank of the United States. Federal uber alles was the guiding trump theme then -- as might also be considered as the guiding principle behind prohibiting a tax on a "shall not be infringed" express Right nowadays as well.

But we're now far beyond all such nonsense in actually considering the express Constitutional intent of 2A. Even Heller said the government can 'regulate' that right -- which means it is no Right at all -- merely government sufferance.

qed





post: If you want to see the quintessential train wreck of Frankensteinian Constuitutional logic along this line of federal power to do what it wants at the individual level, see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
 
We were putting people in concentration camps in 1942, too, weren't we.

Another point of twisted logic is the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment. The obvious statement is that the people, or at least some of them, be armed, but to what end. To some, it seems to be so that we can violently overthrow government (presumably any government), while the conservatives among us believe it is to prevent the overthrow of the government.

That's just another way to look at it.
 
BlueTrain said:
To some, it seems to be so that we can violently overthrow government (presumably any government), while the conservatives among us believe it is to prevent the overthrow of the government.
Click to expand...

In every discussion on this topic in which you participate, I always get the feeling that you believe that there must be some SINGULAR purpose for the 2A. This statement is a perfect example. How about, rather than either/or, the answer is BOTH and more?

I also get the impression from your statements, that you somehow correlate the rights of the people with some sort of benefit or service or rationale for the government. As in, what would be the interpretation of the 2A that would be a benefit to the government for having it. I could be wrong, but many of your statements sound that way to me.

Well, there is no singular purpose, except freedom, and it's not there for some future, theoretical government purpose or usefulness. It's there for the benefit of the people.
 
Peetza said:
what would be the interpretation of the 2A that would be a benefit to the government for having it [?]
Click to expand...
Originally, it was to have a cohort of able-bodied/competent men who could quickly form a "well-regulated" militia in response to a security threat to the state. It is very significant that this capability was to be invested in "The People" rather than reserved to an officially-controlled standing Army.

And if one reads enough of the Federalist papers trying to convince the State legislatures to sign on to the current Constitution, that very armed People was dramatically touted as the reason that no central gov't could sieze trannical power.**

2A was intended to cut both ways:

- The People's defense of a Just government;
- The People's defense against an unjust one.





** It was very much NOT for "...hunting or sporting purposes." It was for deadly force against humans purposes.)
 
Last edited:
People seem to look at the Constitution and think that it is the beginning and end of US law. I submit that the Constitution is not the law of the land, but the framework our platform for the law of the land, which is is the US Code and its various titles.

The Constitution gives de facto taxing power to the Government, and many courts at the various levels have recognized the right of the government to levy taxes even on rights that are enumerated by the Constitution.

The concept of' natural rights' being somehow free of taxes is an interesting theory, but has no foundation under any legal precedent with which I am familiar.
 
I disagree. I definately believe there is no right to violently overthrow the government. True, it has been done in other places but it's never a good idea. The American Revolution was a colonial war. The government of Great Britain was not overthrown. That had happened there but they quickly tired of the consequences. So if that's what you're thinking of, please think twice.

I'm not sure if I believe the 2nd amendment has a singlular purpose or not (never thought of it that way) but I don't believe overthrowing the government is one of them. In fact, I wish to go on record as not wanting the government (any government) to be overthrown by violent means. I have said this before (and people have disagreed), the end result will invariably be worse. The central government after the revolution was stronger than any single state government before the revolution. And it was even stronger still after the constitution was adopted (to form a more perfect union). But perhaps you want a strong central government!
 
I wish to go on record as not wanting the government (any government)
to be overthrown by violent means....
Click to expand...
That flies in the face of logic, the Federalist papers, and consent of the governed under just rule.

Other than that, I have no strong opinion. ;)
 
Last edited:
No reasonable person wants our government, as it stands today, to be overthrown.

But the founders DID specifically include that "Doomsday Scenario" in much of their personal writings. It is clear that it WAS (and IS) one of the several intended purposes for the 2A.

Today's government, violent overthrow? No.

If I was in Syria today? Yes.

The People, irrespective of our constitution or any other, have the right to do what the Syrian people are doing today. Doomsday.

Should our government go down that path, we have the same right, also irrespective of the constitution. Our right is simply codified, with particular intent, I believe it's obvious, to head off just such an event by having the people legally armed.

Peace through strength, as it were.
 
Forgive me for reading into some of these posts something that no one has said but it sure sounds to me like some think (but none of the previous ten contributors to this thread) that good and sufficient reason to overthrow the government is simply disliking the government that was legally and democratically elected. In any case, I'm sure we're all conservative here and overthrowing the governent is a pretty radical thing, you know.
 
BT said:
In any case, I'm sure we're all conservative here and overthrowing the governent is a pretty radical thing, you know.
Click to expand...

Yet, that is what a conservative group of english landowners did when denied their rights as subjects and subjected to taxes so low they would make Ron Paul giddy.

I concur with Brian Pfleuger. You don't need to agree on a lone rationale for the right to recognise that it is a legitimate right.

Legal and democratic elections aren't the sole standard for legitimacy and desirability. Recall how releived the world was when Musharref took control of Pakistan and effectively voided an election.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive me for reading into some of these posts something that no one has said but it sure sounds to me like some think that good and sufficient reason to overthrow the government is simply disliking the government that was legally and democratically elected.
Click to expand...
Some folks think that way. Usually, those folks are living a fantasy that they'll be heroes and ultimately rulers of the New World that will magically appear in the wake of horrific, disruptive violence.

We have the option of using force to stop government tyranny, but we're a long way from having the need to do so.

Now, back to the original point of this thread: is taxing a right lawful?
 
Laws that do so are upheld, the answer is obviously yes. Our opinions on whether it is a just thing to do is irrelevant. They have codified it, and handed down judgements in the courts, so it is without doubt technically "lawful". Jim crow was "lawful", Sharia is "lawful", the individual mandate is "lawful". All that really means is that every moral and just man is a criminal IMO.
 
1. Congress has the power to tax (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 US Constitution)
2. All States have the power to tax (innumerable state Constitutions)
3. All Rights "can be" regulated. (Supreme Court increasingly ad nauseum)
4. Taxes are one means of "regulating" (US history forever ad nauseum)
5. The 2A is a "Right"
6. All 2A Rights can be taxed.
qed

7. (not to be forgotten...) The power to tax is the power to destroy. See again McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) op cit
8. Any "rights" assumed under 2A can be effectively destroyed without ever directly addressing the central issue.
qed again
 
Interesting discussion...

But some of the points raised, and terms used make me wonder if we are missing a point, on that might be important to theory, if not in practice.

The 2nd Amendment gives us NO rights. None of the Bill of Rights gives us any rights. We have those, irrespective of any written list. The whole Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions for the government, things they are not allowed to do to certain enumerated rights. And the listing of those rights is intentionally incomplete. It is stated so in the 10th Amendment.

I know we often talk of rights "granted" by the Constitution, but that is no more true than the belief that the US is a democracy. We are a democratic constitutional republic, and while democracy is a part of our system it is not all of it.

as to our "right" to over throw the government, I suggest a careful reading of the entire Declaration of Independence.

And, getting back to the question of "is it legal to tax a right", the simplest answer is that it is legal if the govt says it is. We may disagree on moral grounds, but the actual legality is determined by those who make, and interperet the law. There are many things that people hold to be moraly "right" but are illegal under current law. And many things that are legal under current law that some people hold to be morally wrong.

Historically, our govt has, and is taxing or regulating lots of rights. And, to date, I haven't heard of any successful challenges. So, I'd guess its pretty much a done deal. Nice to dream, though...
 
The 2nd Amendment gives us NO rights. None of the Bill of Rights gives us any rights. We have those, irrespective of any written list.
Click to expand...

I see this quite differently in the sense that the BOR defined for us some specific rights that indeed have to be written down because they would not otherwise be recognized as rights and were not being recognized as rights.

When rights are not recognized by the government, they don't exist as legal rights or rights in practice, but are instead rights in theory.
 
No it is not. Because your ability to exercise that right hinges on your willingness or ability to pay the tax. If you don't pay the tax they you cannot exercise the right. Therefore it follows that it is no longer a right but a privilege that the government can take from you.
 
Double Naught..the BoR enumerated certain rights. It granted none. Nor did it limit us to just those few rights. That was made clear in the 10th Amendment.
 
njoelhickson said:
No it is not. Because your ability to exercise that right hinges on your willingness or ability to pay the tax. If you don't pay the tax they you cannot exercise the right. Therefore it follows that it is no longer a right but a privilege that the government can take from you.
Click to expand...

If you and I want to hand out leaflets about the 2d Am. and we have 2000 printed up at Kinkos, and we can't have them without paying a sales tax, has our freedom of speech been abridged?
 
There is nothing stopping me from verbally speaking about the second amendment and the rights of gun owners. However...if was told that I needed to buy a permit in order to do that, I would consider such a thing to be a violation of my right to free speech. Because that is directly related to the exercise of the right.

But a tax such as you are talking about is not applied SPECIFICALLY with my right to speech in mind. In that instance, the tax applied to the buying or printing of the leaflets in merely incidental.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top