Posts
The powers over commerce and money granted by the Constitution are very limited. The Congress can:
- Borrow money.
- Coin gold and silver money.
- Tax imports and exports.
- Tax income. (The 16th amendment.)
- Regulate interstate commerce, which obviously means the Congress can make laws to settle disputes and inconsistencies between the states.
Of course, the government now exercises absolute power over commerce. For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the power to tax justifies forcing everyone to buy health insurance or else pay a fine. Even though this new precedent gives the Congress a way to force us to buy products and services, it was still not satisfactory to the four so-called “liberal” justices because they wanted the decision to include a direct assertion that the commerce clause empowers the Congress to force us to buy products and services. How is it that so-called “liberals” want to force the little guy to buy products and services?
The so called “liberal” Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court that the power to regulate interstate commerce justified banning the presence of guns in homes within 1000 feet of a school because guns impact education, and education impacts the economy, and the economy impacts interstate commerce, and the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce! Amazingly, five of the Supreme Court justices disagreed with the Clinton administration. Of course, once one of those five justices has been replaced by Obama, his plan to ban guns everywhere within, not 1000, but 5000! feet of a school will pass the Supreme Court.
Given the new precedent that Congress can make us buy products and services, the many existing bans on products and services, the millions of pages of regulations, the fact that our money is printed out of thin air without competition, and the federal debt; I think it is fair to say that government now exercises absolute power over commerce and is not wielding that power in good faith.
Such extreme power and corruption requires an extreme remedy. Therefore, I propose a new Freedom Amendment – The Separation of Commerce and State:
Separation of Commerce and State
The Congress shall make no law with respect to commerce.
Given that money is part of commerce, the Congress shall not borrow money and shall make no law with respect to money.
Given that labor is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to keep the fruits of their labor shall not be infringed.
Given that trade is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to trade the fruits of their labor for the fruits of another's labor shall not be infringed. Nor shall the Congress compel the states or the people to trade the fruits of their labor.
Are you implying in a roundabout way that the 16th Amendment does not give the federal government the power to tax the income of individuals, but only businesses? If so, I'd love to read your thinking on that.
ReplyDeleteI am doubtful that the 16th amendment gives the US government the authority to tax individual income. A little research will yield good reasons to be doubtful; whereas, I have seen no counter arguments explaining why the 16th amendment applies to individuals.
Delete"whereas, I have seen no counter arguments explaining why the 16th amendment applies to individuals."
DeleteThen we are in similar boats, because I have never seen an argument that the 16th *doesn't* apply to individuals. What I have seen are arguments about what is and is not "taxable income" under federal tax law, most of which has been deemed frivolous by the federal courts.
But an argument that the 16th does not apply to individuals? That would be one I'd love to see. In any case, I can hardly form a "counter argument" when I still have no inkling of what your argument is.
Seeing it, I may not even have to formulate a counter argument in the first place. So, let's see it.
BTW: Not trying to be a dangle here. Love your site, and agree with most of what you post. K=Just have some issues with this one. Thanks.
DeleteI have read that "income" only referred to that of corporations in 1913, but also, common sense tells me that the people would never have supported an amendment that authorized Congress to tax up to 100% of everyone's income from wages and all other sources.
DeleteHowever, further research tells me that the 16th amendment was generally understood from the beginning to apply to individual income including wages, although, I still don't know why the people would have accepted it. I guess it was just inconceivable then that anyone but the richest 1% would ever have to pay it, or that it would ever be more than a few percent.