"Just compensation" = the services provided by those taxes. Schools, roads, medicare, leadership, the privilege of being a citizen, etc. The 5th amendment was really more to keep the government from taking houses or land and using it for their purposes. Now, the government must pay if they want your land.
Have you seen http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ ? The argument has been made; taxation on income is unconstitutional. I would personally fight it, if I wasn't already getting back 95% of my taxes thanks to my property write off.
"Don't these two amendments contradict each other, just a bit?"
Yes. Pretty similar to the way that Amendments 18 and 21 (Prohibition and the repeal) might be seen to contradict each other. Later amendments always take precedence.
"What would the legal course of action be if we decided we weren't being 'compensated' for our taxes?"
There's a bunch of choices. It's possible to sue the government, though I doubt you'd get very far. Tax revolts are part of the US history and tradition.
You also have to remember my friend that part of the reason America fought for it's freedom from Britain is that we were being taxed out of existence. Therefore I would say that the original 5th amendment doesn't pertain to taxes so much as actual property, like land. Even though Congress was given the power to tax they didn't institute a personal tax till much later. This is getting into history now. And I believe there is a way that you can become a resident of the state of California, I know what you are thinking that we all are residents of California...but I remember when I was a bank teller for Wells Fargo there was a guy who was a resident of the State of California and he didn't pay federal taxes. He had a different drivers license and didn't have the same rights as residents of the US do. If you really don't wanna pay the federal income tax then I would look into that. I wouldn't even know where to begin. But it's a thought. And this has officially become a longer comment than I intended.
I don't believe so seeing as how the first American's didn't need passports. But you never know. It is a federal offense to cross state lines with certain things...It's called interstate commerce. Look it up.
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yes. Pretty similar to the way that Amendments 18 and 21 (Prohibition and the repeal) might be seen to contradict each other. Later amendments always take precedence.
The 16th Amendment was actually set up because SCOTUS interepreted the body of the constitution as forbiding an unproportional direct tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"What would the legal course of action be if we decided we weren't being 'compensated' for our taxes?"
There's a bunch of choices. It's possible to sue the government, though I doubt you'd get very far. Tax revolts are part of the US history and tradition.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment