ANOTHER IRS Scandal

[Catherine]

The biggest problem with our system of government is career politicians and their need for the financial support of major contributors. Even the best of our politicians should be replaced after feeding at the public trough too long.

What we need is term limits: one term in office and one term in prison.

Sounds about right!

[Catherine]

>the sole legitimate purpose of government is to secure our rights... not dependent upon any government<<

The rights mentioned are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (I believe the right to property was specifically removed from mention.) Then it says that people agree to government so they can secure these rights. In our country, we do the agreeing in a certain formal way, called elected representatives. And those representatives secure those rights by passing laws. And the laws embrace a social compassion, based in part on a long-standing philosophy that faith without good deeds is dead..

Other forms of government also use public resources to make sure everyone has those rights, but most of us think our way is best. From time to time we consider whether we should avoid compassion as a society and require staunch individualism, but that hasn't worked out very well in the matter of good deeds.

Jainen is correct that the term "property" was specifically changed here -- because even in the Declaration, the founders' generation was *already* looking ahead to the abolition of the disgusting practice of slavery (originally foisted onto the colonies by the British government, and at that time legal in 9 of the 13 colonies). John Locke and Frederic Bastiat specifically address the issue of property in their earlier writings. However, the underlying principle of property reappears in several places in the Declaration (read and find for yourselves; text is available here http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ and other places online).

The federal government, in the Constitution, is specifically and purposefully NOT given any jurisdiction over the internal affairs of states except in extremely limited areas. All the "social good" practices are left to the People and the States, to deal with as they, internally, wish, through their state constitutions and state elected representatives and charitable organizations/churches.

The entire purpose of the federal government was to have jurisdiction ONLY over a small number of areas that require a united front: national defense, standardization of currency, standardization of import/export, peaceful dealings with other nations, uniform bankruptcy code; plus a few areas where states (or states and federal) might squabble.

There are links to a number of articles that folks may find interesting, here:

http://constitutiondecoded.com/events-links-to-articles.html

[Catherine]

I actually came to this thread intending to post a link, and got side-tracked...

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lheal/the-irs-continues-its-abuse-of-power?awesm=freedo.mw_bT

[Guest Taxed]

The IRS scandal has lost the traction that Repubs. wanted to happen after D. Issa failed to release the full transcripts. All I see is Ted Cruz trying to make a buck off it on TV ads promising to abolish the IRS!

Ms. Lerner will either demand full immunity or this will end up in court because D.Issa can't force her to talk even if he recalls her.

[JohnH]

I think justice might be well served if she is granted immunity. As much as the left would like to sweep this under the rug, it isn't likely to go away. Sooner or later some people will crawl out from under the bus.

[Guest Taxed]

I agree. Give her full immunity and let her sing! I want to hear what she has to say.

[kcjenkins]

Odds are, though, that she will refuse to testify, get cited for contempt of congress, liberal groups will raise millions for her 'defense', and it will drag on in the courts well past the next national election. Whether she goes to jail or not, most voters will have forgotten who she is, if they ever knew, by that time. Only thing that might come of it, if she is cited for contempt of congress, she MIGHT lose her cushy paycheck, and that job overseeing IRS administration of Obamacare?

[jainen]

>>most voters will have forgotten who she is, if they ever knew<<

We the voters know there are a lot of things wrong. What we are looking for are some positive ideas, not just complaining about the other side.

[SCL]

The federal government, in the Constitution, is specifically and purposefully NOT given any jurisdiction over the internal affairs of states except in extremely limited areas. All the "social good" practices are left to the People and the States, to deal with as they, internally, wish, through their state constitutions and state elected representatives and charitable organizations/churches.

strict constructionists conveniently and incorrectly deny/ignore MANY parts of the constitution that are not written "in extremely limited areas" (let alone in less extreme areas of their self image)...here is a two stage thought process for your consideration.

Given - the introduction to the Constitution of the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (my emphasis), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Then - Article. I. Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power

(clause one) To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States (my emphasis); but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(confirmed by clause eighteen) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[kcjenkins]

A Video Tour of Government Waste

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/62641-a-video-tour-of-government-waste/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%2319098&utm_campaign=07-01-2013%20IJ%20Review

[SCL]

to quote a recent objectionable post of yours in this thread...Bulls__

when in doubt and on the run, obfuscate.

what about article 1, section 8...clause one and eighteen.

[Catherine]

to quote a recent objectionable post of yours in this thread...Bulls__

when in doubt and on the run, obfuscate.

what about article 1, section 8...clause one and eighteen.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/

[SCL]

the last time your strict constructionist (Madison) interpretation of "general welfare" held the absolute high ground was in 1833. by 1936 and after, our constitutional republic (LOL!) of president, congress, and supreme court has affirmed, over and over, Hamilton's broad view of "general welfare".

Wikipedia - general welfare taxing and spending clause

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.

As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.

Historical Debate and Pre-1936 Rulings

In one letter, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

• James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
• Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler (1936). There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

[Catherine]

By 1936, the "Progressive" movement had infected BOTH parties as well as the Supreme Court. "Precedent" is not synonymous with "correct" and nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given sole determination of Constitutionality. "Precedent" when used in medicine is termed "anecdote" and is dismissed out of hand; they same standard should apply Constitutionally.

The Federalist Papers show over and over again that the commerce clause and general welfare clause were to be read _very_ strictly and narrowly.

The Anti-Federalist papers show over and over again exactly how the to-be-created federal government was going to over-reach its Constitutional bounds. Despite the emotional hyperbole of many of those writings, they were correct.

[SCL]

so, please correct my opinion of your conservative (revisionist/reactionary) interpretation of history.

since 1936, in our post modern society for 77 years, you concede our "constitutional republic" has interpreted the gen welfare clause in broad terms.

go to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200.

[OldJack]

Until recent years I had never seen liberals discussing tax on this forum. Its a sad day when tax preparers have no common sense like our tax code.

[jainen]

>>I had never seen liberals discussing tax on this forum<<

Yeah, we just slunk around out of sight!

But there's different aspects to it. Much of our chatter here is technical stuff about filling out the forms and somehow getting paid for it. Then we explore our role in tax policy, for example, whether our due diligence really helps accomplish the legislative purpose behind EIC. Legislative purpose has been mighty foggy of late, and everything looks different in the fog.

One thing that has certainly changed recently is the IRS abandoning its good old audits in favor of Automatic Under Reporter and Math Letter blitzes. That might not seem political, but if you think about it computers have really changed the relationship of citizens to the government quite a bit.

[OldJack]

>>Much of our chatter here is technical stuff about filling out the forms and somehow getting paid for it.<<

Chatter on tech stuff is great, political opinion is not what I visit the forum to see. Some members here act like they are on facebook telling everyone about their personal life and social opinions. Its getting to be a bit much.