Full Document On this occasion I beat an old horse, just to prove that he is not dead. Unlike Ion, however, I trust that I do not mistake the wisdom of the authors for the wisdom of the rhapsode. These critics insist, however, that what nature and history refused to humankind law can create and they would indeed have all men equalized, the Constitution notwithstanding.
First Amendment[ edit ] Some protesters argue that imposition of income taxes violates the First Amendment freedom of speech because it requires the subject of the tax to write information on a tax return; this argument can be rejected as specious because what the First Amendment protects is the right to communicate, and does not in any manner provide any right not to say anything.
United States that a religious belief, however strongly held, does not exempt the believer from adhering to general laws.
Sullivan is often cited by courts in Fifth Amendment self-incrimination cases Self incrimination[ edit ] Other protesters argue that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination allows an individual to refuse to file an income tax return calling for information that could lead to a conviction for criminal acts from which the income was derived, or for the crime of not paying the tax itself.
Sullivanwhere Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime.
But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law.
All that is necessary to ask is, could the answer to the question, alone, provide a "link in the chain" necessary to provide evidence to a crime. Takings Clause[ edit ] Some protesters have argued that the income tax is a prohibited "takings" under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause  and can not be imposed unless the taxpayer receives just compensation.
Every time a court finds a defendant guilty, the court has deprived the defendant of life or liberty, and every time a court rules in favor of a plaintiff or defendant, the court has deprived either the plaintiff or the defendant of some property. So saying that a court has deprived someone of life, liberty, or property is not particularly interesting unless you can explain exactly what the court did or did not do that deprived that particular someone of due process.
Similarly, the general proposition that every man has the right to his own labor does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the government cannot tax the "common right" of labor.
If the government could never impose a tax that took away someone's rights to their property, then the government could never tax anyone for anything. So the claim that a tax deprives someone of "property" or a "right" is pretty much meaningless.
Ward,  Fox v. Commissioner,  and United States v. Such arguments have been ruled without merit under contemporary jurisprudence. Notably, some tax protesters contend that the Fourteenth Amendment itself was never properly ratified, under the theory that the governments of southern states that supported the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were not representative of the people.
Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments It has been argued that the imposition of the U. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congressor that Ohio was not a State during ratification.
Others argue that due to language in Stanton v. Several tax protesters assert that the Congress has no constitutional power to tax labor or income from labor,  citing a variety of court cases.
These arguments include claims that the word " income " as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages ; that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them; that taxing wages violates individuals' right to property,  and several others. Seventeenth Amendment[ edit ] An argument raised in the case of Trohimovich v.
Commissioner is that the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, and that all laws passed by Congress since the year which was not the year of ratification are invalid.
The Trohimovich case involved a criminal contempt charge against the taxpayer in connection with a failure to obey a subpoena to produce books and records needed for the trial of the case.
The United States Tax Court stated: The [taxpayer's] petition in this case, while rambling and lengthy, appears to rely primarily on arguments that neither the Internal Revenue Service nor this Court has authority to determine petitioner's tax liability because the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the method of electing senators to the U.
This included the Internal Revenue Code and the legislation which established this Court. The court rejected the taxpayer's arguments, and ordered that "he be imprisoned for 30 days as punishment" for criminal contempt in failing to obey court orders or subpoenas. Proposed as an amendment to the Constitution by the 11th Congress init would, if ratified by the required number of states, strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign government.
The contention here is that this amendment was in fact ratified by the required number of states in the s to have become an operative part of the Constitution, and that, because this is so, actions taken by lawyers and judges, who use the title Esquire —asserted to be a title of nobility and monarchical—are unconstitutional.
In fact, the use of "Esquire" by lawyers and judges is merely an informal custom in the United States, not a title with any legal standing. Additionally, the Court will correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a certified copy of the Thirteenth Amendment from the Colorado State Archives which was published in As included in that compilation, the Thirteenth Amendment would strip an individual of United States citizenship if they accept any title of nobility or honor.
However, this is not the Thirteenth Amendment. The correct Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. Although some people claim that state publication of the erroneous Thirteenth Amendment makes it valid, Article V of the Constitution does not so provide.
The agency collects taxes and enforces the internal revenue laws. Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ruled that an income tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of is unconstitutional.Also, many believe that 9/11 was framed.
District of Columbia why i agree with the argument that the british constitution is whatever the government chooses to do vs Heller A comprehensive law review article which offers the most thorough legal analysis to date of the process by which corporations have seized specific constitutional rights Bermuda and Great Britain A British Overseas Territory with more self-government than . A constitution is a set of laws on how a country is governed. The British Constitution is unwritten in one single document, unlike the constitution in America or the proposed European Constitution, and as such, is referred to as an uncodified constitution in the sense that there is no single document that can be classed as Britain's constitution. In the 19th century, A. V. Dicey, a highly influential constitutional scholar and lawyer, wrote of the twin pillars of the British constitution in his classic work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (). These pillars are the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body: its Acts are the highest source of .
I do not have a lot of information about this theory, but I would still like to present it to the voters. Voters: The government is against us!
Time and time again have our best interest been over looked simply because of the American government's greed. This is a summary of whether should the government intervene in the economy. Arguments for government intervention Greater equality – redistribute income and wealth to improve equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
Some of these facts that you are saying do make sense, and that is why people in government need to come up with some type of compromise in order to stop killings with and without guns.
Feb 19, · Do you agree or disagree with this statement (American Government)? Explain in depth why or why not.
The United States Supreme Court is not a democratic entity and actually works to thward the democratic process in this ashio-midori.com: Resolved.
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. Its Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person's right to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, Courts established by the Constitution can regulate government under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
First, they have jurisdiction over actions by. The Unwritten British Constitution.
There is a another argument whether the British government actually have a constitutional mandate to follow some of the parliament action even if there is not a specific mandate sometimes the government over go the constitution it means that parliament uses the ultimate lawmaking power over the.