This law is universally applicable within the territorial boundaries of the United States and is not limited to those parts that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. In general, in each state of this union, the preservation of peace and the protection of persons and property are the tasks of the national government and at least are not part of the primary duty of the nation. Acts of Congress relating to these matters do not extend to the territorial boundaries of the states, but have effect only in the District of Columbia and other places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. Why it`s frivolous: The U.S. consists of 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, it united individual states under a strong federal government, reserving some powers to the states and leaving some to the federal government. This in no way implies the sovereignty of a State. Several lawsuits, including United States v. Collins and Brushaber v.
Union Pacific Railroad Co. confirmed this. Both cases indicate that the 16th Amendment gives the federal government the power to levy taxes anywhere under the federal umbrella, including all 50 states. The first day of collection of taxes under the new law was March 1, 1914. Since the average worker earned only about $800 a year, few people had to pay federal income tax. Less than 4% of American families earned an annual income of $3,000 or more. Deductions and exemptions have further reduced the pool of taxpayers. Yet the federal government raised $71 million in its first year.
Millionaire John D. Rockefeller alone paid about $2 million. People who make this argument claim that Federal Reserve notes (those greenbacks in our wallets) are not real money because they cannot be exchanged for gold or silver. They raise Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which gives the federal government exclusive power to create and regulate currency. Specifically, they assert that Article 10 limits all legal tenders exclusively to gold and silver. Whenever a court finds a defendant guilty, the court has deprived the defendant of life or liberty, and whenever a court rules in favour of a plaintiff or defendant, the court has deprived the plaintiff or defendant of certain property. Saying that a court deprived someone of life, liberty, or property is not particularly interesting unless you can explain exactly what the court did (or did not do) deprive that particular person of due process. Similarly, the general thesis that each person has the right to his or her own work does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the government cannot tax the “common law” of labour. If the government could never impose a tax that would take away someone`s rights to their property, then it could never tax anyone for anything. Thus, the claim that a tax deprives someone of “property” or a “right” is quite meaningless. [8] The law: The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution provides that “Congress shall not enact any law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or restrictions on freedom of expression or freedom of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peacefully and to ask the government to remedy the situation. However, the First Amendment does not provide for the right to refuse to pay income taxes on religious or moral grounds, or because the taxes are used to fund government programs that are rejected by taxpayers. Similarly, it is generally accepted that the RFRA does not have the right to avoid paying taxes on religious grounds. The First Amendment does not protect commercial speech or speech that aids or abets taxpayers to unlawfully refuse to pay federal income taxes, including statements that encourage abusive tax evasion schemes. Relevant case law: United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260 (1982) – The Supreme Court has held that the general public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs that contradict the payment of taxes are not grounds for refusing payment. Jenkins v.