1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ron Paul praises convicted tax evaders

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jun 26, 2007.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6709968&nav=4QcS

    Ron Paul praises convicted tax evaders

    Associated Press - June 26, 2007 8:35 AM ET


    CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - New Hampshire's convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown have gained a new supporter: presidential hopeful Ron Paul.

    In an interview with RogueGovernment.com, the Texas congressman compares the Browns to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior. He says the Browns are suffering like those leaders.

    The Browns are holed up in their Plainfield (New Hampshire) home and have threatened violence against federal officials if marshals come to arrest them. They were convicted of an elaborate scheme to hide millions of dollars in income. Their protest has become a rallying cry for anti-tax activists and militia members.
     
    #1 carpro, Jun 26, 2007
  2. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is great news, thanks for posting this Carpro! Praise God for Ron Paul and the Brown's. May God keep them all safe during this time.
     
    #2 Rufus_1611, Jun 26, 2007
  3. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ron Paul is identifying himself as even more of a fringe candidate than I thought.

    I am surprised that you would support convicted criminals who refuse to render their fair share of "unto Caesar" and have threatened violence to law enforcement officials.
     
    #3 carpro, Jun 26, 2007
  4. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/alt.politics/messages/3032571.html

    I hate income taxes, too, and wish they'd be repealed. But Article 16 establishes them. I guess Paul only supports the parts of the constitution he agrees with? That puts him in pretty broad company. And doesn't Paul support the rule of law, a benchmark of conservatism?
     
    #4 TomVols, Jun 26, 2007
  5. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    It should not be fringe to advocate for the dissolution of the private owned organization known as the federal reserve and their collection agency known as the IRS. This is a consistent principle of Congressman Paul's.

    They have not refused to render their fair share unto Caesar. The opposite is true.
     
    #5 Rufus_1611, Jun 26, 2007
  6. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are clearly wrong.
     
    #6 carpro, Jun 26, 2007
  7. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    If congress did not have the power to tax people's labor prior to the 16th amendment, they did not have the power after the 16th amendment.
     
    #7 Rufus_1611, Jun 26, 2007
  8. KeithS

    KeithS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    My understanding is that they did have the power to tax income prior to the 16th amendment. This is granted in Article 1 section 8. The 16th amendment merely redefined whether income was a "direct" tax or an "indirect" tax. See the wiki article on the 16th amendment which states in part...

    "Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the "source" of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the U.S. Congress the power to tax incomes (a power Congress has had since the late 1700s), but only removed the requirement, if any, that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to population:..."
     
    #8 KeithS, Jun 26, 2007
  9. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    LAW AND ANALYSIS

    "The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. CONST. amend. XVI. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (relying on the Sixteenth Amendment in holding that the income tax provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913 were not unconstitutional).

    Promoters who claim that the federal income tax is unconstitutional often make frivolous arguments that there were defects in the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment by the states. There are a number of variations on these frivolous arguments: (i) versions of the Amendment ratified by the states contained defects in spelling, punctuation, wording, or capitalization; (ii) state legislatures did not follow proper procedures in ratifying the amendment; (iii) state governors did not sign the amendment; (iv) one or more of the states that ratified the Amendment was not legally a state; and (v) the Amendment does not contain an enabling clause. These arguments have no merit, and courts have consistently rejected all challenges to the constitutionality of the federal income tax following enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment. See Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”). Arguments to the contrary are frivolous.

    The Fifth Amendment prevents the federal government from taking property without due process of law. U.S. CONST. amend. V. Due process generally includes a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court has held that the procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code fully satisfy the due process rights of taxpayers. See Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-99 (1931) (“The right of the United States to collect its internal revenue by summary administrative proceedings has long been settled. Where, as here, adequate opportunity is afforded for a later judicial determination of the legal rights, summary proceedings to secure prompt performance of pecuniary obligations to the government have been consistently sustained.”). The argument that due process requires a hearing before tax has to be paid or can be withheld from wages is frivolous.

    The federal income tax only requires payment of taxes on a person’s income. It does not force a person to labor involuntarily, or to labor at all. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment when convicted of a crime. U.S. CONST. amend. XIII. The Thirteenth Amendment does not proscribe taxation. See Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953) (The specification, that the act violates the Thirteenth Amendment by imposing involuntary servitude upon an employer of domestic servants, seems to us far-fetched, indeed frivolous.”). Moreover, a prison sentence for failing to file a federal income tax return is not prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. See United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 983 (8th Cir. 1983) (“The Thirteenth Amendment, however, is inapplicable where involuntary servitude is imposed as punishment for a crime.”). Failing to file a federal income tax return or to pay federal income tax based on the argument that it would constitute involuntary servitude is frivolous. "


    Paul is praising common criminals.

    Maybe he should have stuck to medicine.
     
    #9 carpro, Jun 26, 2007
  10. James_Newman

    James_Newman New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may be a little simplistic in areas like law and taxation, but just because the 16th amendment supposedly authorizes congress to tax my wages, doesn't there have to be a law enacted by congress to utilize that power? Isn't that what the question is, where is the law that says we have to pay taxes?
     
    #10 James_Newman, Jun 26, 2007
  11. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder just how old ronnie would handle this if he were currently President? Supporting law breakers is not a good campaign promise. I am glad he is being transparent on this issue though. I wouldn't vote for him.
     
    #11 2 Timothy2:1-4, Jun 26, 2007
  12. KeithS

    KeithS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe enacted law comes under CFR 26 (Code of Federal Regulation Title 26). Sometimes also called United States Code. The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.
     
    #12 KeithS, Jun 26, 2007
  13. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will you provide an example of this please? Also, will you provide the source for whomever you are quoting?
     
    #13 Rufus_1611, Jun 26, 2007
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is the question that was asked by the juries who found some not guilty, when being charged for not paying their taxes. Those juries who found others guilty, didn't ask that question. I guess it's a gamble one takes when they don't pay their taxes. While I am opposed to income tax and would love to see the 16th Amendment repealed and the IRS abolished, I do pay my taxes because I'm not willing to take a risk of getting the wrong jury.
     
    #14 JGrubbs, Jun 26, 2007
  15. KeithS

    KeithS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting...CFR 26 Chapter 1 Part 1 Sec. 1.1-1 clearly imposes an income tax on the income of individuals. So, how could a jury not understand this clearly written law. I'm no legal expert - I just don't understand how it can get any clearer than this.
     
    #15 KeithS, Jun 26, 2007
  16. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Even if juries fail to understand , appeals courts and SCOTUS appear to. The rulings have all been consistent. IE The fed govt. has the constitutional authority to tax our incomes.

    Paul is off base in his support of criminals that intend to kill to uphold their right to act as criminals.
     
    #16 carpro, Jun 26, 2007
  17. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    The constitution is law of the land. Laws that expound upon, clarify, etc. the constitution may do so, but laws are not necessary to ratify the constitution, if you will.

    Think of it this way: We do not need to pass a law saying I can own a gun - the 2nd Amendment is that law. However, USC can contain provisions relative to gun ownership, and my state has the power to regulate such so long as it does not encroach upon the 2nd Amendment.

    More simply: If the constitution were not law, what would it be?

    Congressional authorization of the IRS would seem to satisfy 16.

    I think most of us agree that 16 should be repealed. However, legal scholars are divided as to whether or not Art I Sec 8 allows for taxes on income (though I.9 argues against, IMHO).
     
    #17 TomVols, Jun 26, 2007
  18. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,002
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would rather be on the "fringe" with Ron Paul than in the "mainstream" with people like George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.
     
    #18 KenH, Jun 26, 2007
  19. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    42,002
    Likes Received:
    1,492
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Despite being surrounded by federal thugs in early June, despite tanks and helicopters around their property, despite having a friend shot at and arrested, despite having phone and electricity cut off, Ed and Elaine Brown persevere in their simple quest, asking the government to show them the law which requires them to pay federal income taxes. The federal government has been unable to show the Browns the law. Instead they have responded with violence and theft. During the early June raid on the Browns, Elaine's businessplace in West Lebanon was seized. Still, the Browns continue to stand up for their rights."

    - more at www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=36
     
    #19 KenH, Jun 26, 2007
  20. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Bush is mainstream. Have you seen his poll numbers? :laugh:

    Besides, you know better than to equate him with Pelosi :laugh:
     
    #20 TomVols, Jun 26, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...