I Want My Money Back

If you really want to get your representative's attention, form a peaceful and legal insurrection by numbers. Vote with your dollars. Call or write today and ask for your money back. The more, the greater the influence. Email this to your representatives:

Dear [Representative],

Current events indicate the United States is in crises. Government services are stressed and people are somehow surviving without jobs. The Federal Government is funding itself in weekly increments. The people’s representatives are arguing party nonsense versus pragmatic solutions. Very little, if anything, is being accomplished to the people’s satisfaction.

Today the people are being taxed heavily and the social contracts drawn decades ago are being redrawn. When budget adjustments are made, it is done in the areas of education and social services for those unable to help themselves. Educating the young and willing, and taking care of the old and weak define the ethos of the United States. Education and caring for those who can not care for themselves are precisely what shouldn't be touched. They are cultural ideals. The economic future depends on the handling of both. Therefore, as my representative, I instruct you to put the real topical elephants on the table, support practical solutions, and do not suffer the quality of education and care for those who can't care for themselves.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.” (Thomas Jefferson was the original Republican!)

The U.S. Government has shown through action and inaction that it cannot be trusted, especially with money. For these reasons, I am justified in requesting my money back, and being taken quite seriously in doing so. If government can't be relied upon, then give us our money back. We can put it to better use ourselves.

I Want My Money Back!
Cordially,
[Signature]

The Party's Over

There's a common thread in our political system that began subtly as a polarization between Federalist and Anti-Federalist (or 'Anti's as they were called in the 1780s) . It's so common that it slips under our civic noses without a scent. It is simply the way things are and have been. The party system is even mistakenly thought to have been defined by the Constitution. Well, that's just rubbish. We are often somewhat predisposed to lend credibility to one party over the other. This common thread has nothing to do with issues, which is probably not surprising. Nope, the common thread is 'Party'. Here's what I mean:

A political party is a faction, plain and simple. James Madison warned about this kind of faction in the Federalist Papers (the documents most used by the Supreme Court to debate the vagaries of the Constitution). Madison knew that faction in politics was like air to fire. Politics is the air fueling emergent factions.

The primary political factions of the day are the longstanding Democratic and Republican parties. They have heritage, tradition, and money. But, platform has morphed into a set of social and political check boxes and buttons versus ideals of republican government. Buttons like abortion and religion. And it does seem obvious that each party's strategy is simply to obstruct the tactics of the other. To borrow a verse from Buffalo Springfield - If nobody's right, then everybody's wrong

We, the people, have representatives and delegates pointing fingers across aisles, espousing and repeating sugarcoated soundbites about the future that have no substance other than a leap of faith. The trouble is: do the parties deserve the people's faith. The parties are simply feuding factions, void of any meaningful practical use, it's members caught up in a feud for its own sake. A feud against anything that is not fit the predilection to principals. This situation is utterly dysfunctional and unsustainable.

A party must (1) have a defined platform that represents ideals people can believe in, and (2) must be tolerant of the differences and vagaries inherent in human ideals. In other words, let the individuals identify the party versus the party identifying individuals. The latter suppresses emerging ideas and reduces ideals to sacramental ideology. Ideals that could bare practical solutions to our common crises.

In short, a legal record of a mass of tallied votes, collected under legal democratic process, is the only faction of any consequence.

Forty Years Ago Today

The Vietnam War came home on May 4, 1970. Today is the 40th anniversary of the Kent State Massacre. Four dead in Ohio. Days later, students were killed at Jackson State. It's often passed off on the victims, in the wrong place at the wrong time they say. They shouldn't have thrown stones, they say. Some were students walking between classes. The dead and wounded were arbitrary targets. So much for the 'victim' argument.

Where is the stone throwing "Public", the fist of a "Republic"? It disappeared along with the right of insurrection. We gave up the right of insurrection being too busy with the day-to-day; for example earning health care insurance, food, housing; not wishing to disrupt our happy lives. We are too focused on daily routines to be the Public in Republic. We are too busy to throw stones. However, the proverbial threat of stone-throwing is precisely what republican government requires from the public. The Democrats have focused on democratic process, and the Republicans have forgotten it's a Republic.

The U.S. Constitution and State Medical Marijuana Laws

As I write this, fourteen states of the United States have decriminalized marijuana for medical use. Colorado is one of them and is another stage for a showdown between State Law and Federal Law. Colorado by no means stands alone in this distinction. There have been showdowns in other states. For example, a California woman's marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by the DEA even though it was clearly grown for personal consumption under California's medical marijuana legislation. On the surface, I reckon many people might think this is because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding.

Case law interprets the clause to mean State Law is trumped by Federal Law - "... Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding." State Law can't overlay Federal Law because Federal Law is the supreme Law of the Land. What that means is the DEA can ignore state law and bust any marijuana user, grower, or dispensary regardless of state law. The Federal system functions with impunity despite the will of the People in fourteen States.

I can hear the opposition's argument based on Amendment 10 of the Constitution, the Sovereignty Clause. Some might say the Sovereignty Clause protects medical marijuana users.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are based on the Articles of Confederation. The precursor to the Sovereignty Clause in the Articles of Confederation more clearly indicates the intentions of the authors than does Amendment 10 itself.

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

However, the powers of the DEA are not connected to the Supremacy Clause or the Sovereignty Clause. The authority for the DEA to bust people growing for personal and medical consumption comes from the Commerce Clause.

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

The California woman's lawyers maintained and clearly showed the marijuana plants were for personal consumption. But the Supreme Court decided regardless of that, growing one's own marijuana effects interstate traffic nonetheless. The woman didn't buy her marijuana from an interstate supply and her own crop was absent from the interstate traffic. Nevertheless, the marijuana was under Federal Law because interstate commerce could have been effected. There was no way of knowing the marijuana would not enter the interstate market. The woman was prosecuted despite California State Law and lost her law suit because interstate commerce was merely possible. Even though it was shown without a doubt that the crop was for personal use and would not ever be sold or transported over state boundaries. The Commerce Clause was brought into play because of another clause of the Constitution called the "Necessary and Proper Clause" .

The Congress shall have Power - 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.

What all these clauses have in common is the standing of State Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of the People against the standing of Federal Sovereignty. Legal experts who have experience with the U.S. Attorney General's office have said that the now infamous memo containing the Obama Administration's directive to back off medical marijuana states is the most ambiguous directive they have ever read.

It seems that the Federal Government can enforce the Commerce Clause on the speculation of interstate commerce. It's a law you don't have to directly break. In reality no law was broken. Prosecution was on the speculation that the plants could be transported across state boundaries. A person can be prosecuted on the mere possibility that a law could be broken. It's like being pulled over for speeding because, even though you didn't, hypothetically you could have broken the speed limit.

Justice Clarence Thomas stated his dissent over the case very clearly:
"The respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

What is important to observer is a grassroots mindset has grown strong enough to pass marijuana decriminalization laws. The will of the population is poking up through local legislation; having rooted itself, it is now making itself seen.

The functional structure of the U.S. government is better described as a federation of Corporate Operations under two factions (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party). It's reasonable to ask if a grassroots movement can break the surface of the corporate landscape? As long as there's a way to make money at it, a corporation will use all its legal force to find loopholes. It's what happens when something new is accepted to the free market. Corporations will follow the money as soon as the liability is low enough.

How much are you worth?

For the sake of discussion, if you are a U.S. citizen do you want public health care and open access to schools? If you needed a doctor you just go. No co-pay, no remainder after the insurance. If you wanted a bachelors degree you just go. There is no tuition and the books don't cost a cent. Open health care and open education would be good things right? But now say it came at the price of a flat 60% tax rate. Are you still on board?

Denmark has such a tax rate and every Danish citizen has access to doctors, clinics, hospitals schools and universities. Every citizen has access to modern health care facilities and doctors. But it comes at a cost. Every citizen pays taxes for this access. In the U.S. we have premiums, co-pays, and co-insurance instead of high taxes. No matter how we turn the picture there is always a price; common sense - right?

The U.S. electorate is demanding Congress to get on with health care reform. If the solution is something like the Danish model, would the U.S. electorate celebrate or reject it? It's easy to celebrate and it's easy to do nothing, but would the electorate have enough gumption to throw it back? There's some satisfaction in imagining the electorate would rise up on its hind legs and spit back. But historicistics, the history of social developments, suggests the electorate is more likely to wake up and go to work. Sustaining the lifestyle comes first; most of us have to get up in the morning and go to work. Civil disobedience in the 21st century is a forgotten trump card. The electorate is justly concerned about compensation. That leaves only celebrating and doing nothing. Is public access to state supported education and health care worth 60% of your earnings?

If the electorate demands health care reform (it should be insurance reform but...), knowing that it will cost something is common sense. Let's be realistic; nothing is free. Open access for all citizens will cost billions. What is the electorate willing to pay?

There's no doubt in my opinion that education and health care should be state supported in the sense that every citizen has free access. The costs of health care and higher education under corporate auspices have inflated to unaffordable and as long as corporations are involved unregulated costs will continue to rise. Corporations have no altruistic intentions regarding open access to doctors and teachers, hence the object of the paper chase is the money; quite different than the objectives of education and health care. Such things can't be left in the hands of corporations without state regulation and enforcement. It's a formula for several tragedies. As collateral, I can only point to the greed that caused the economic recession of 2009-2010.

The dysfunctional state of the U.S. Congress suggests whatever comes from health care reform will be compromised and the consumer will pay full price for it. Congress can't do it and corporations can't be trusted. The most likely reality is that health care will remain the domain of corporations. The compromise will probably be a government regulated health care system. Enforcement comes part and parcel to regulation which will cost something and is by definition subject to bureaucratic paralysis. It appears the electorate is stuck between death and taxes, and thus it boils down to a question of economics. How much are you worth?

A Sordid Tax Tale

One topic in An American Revolution is the Sixteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The story questions the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment. This is the amendment that allows the government to lay an income tax, among others. It's legality has been challenged many times since it was ratified in 1913. The circumstances of ratification, however, leave an open question. The amendment reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So what's the problem? The architects of the Constitution recorded a different view. First, this is what Article I Section 8 says:

The Congress shall have the power 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; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be Uniform among the United States.

Income tax has the distinction of being legally described as an excise tax. An excise tax, by definition, is a tax on the manufacture and distribution of certain non-essential consumer goods. Fuel tax, for example, is an excise tax. When we work for a company or person, even as an independent contractor, we provide a service and earn a wage for performance. A percentage is set aside for taxes either by withholding or quarterly estimates, and the money ends up in the Federal Reserve. How a tax on income came to be an excise tax is a somewhat sordid story told by stacks of case law. Nevertheless, by definition a paycheck is a manufactured non-essential consumer good. A legal explanation was recorded by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 277 F.2d 16, 60-1 U.S. Tax Case 1959-1960.

It could well be argued that the tax involved here is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.

The term capitation tax needs clarification, it will come up again. A capitation tax is like a head tax, it is a direct tax apportioned uniformly in accordance with the census. Income tax, on the other hand is a percentage of money received.

The next part of the puzzle is Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The Sixteenth seems to contradict the intentions of Sections 8 and 9, because it says that Congress can lay taxes without regard for apportionment. And, this is where things slide off the plate into a bucket of one hundred years of case law, including the Penn Mutual case. Its ironic, starting with two rather simple propositions from Article I, Section 8 and Section 9, the volume of case law is inestimable. The architects of the Constitution explicitly set taxation in relation to representation with these two propositions. Except, the income tax is considered an excise tax, which by definition is an indirect tax and has no relationship with representation.

Once upon a time in 1861 the Union needed money for the Civil War and Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861. It was a flat tax on incomes over $800.00 per year. Next they passed the Revenue Act of 1862. It was a graduated tax on incomes over $600.00 per year and had a 1866 sundown. In the 1890's, the Socialist Labor Party, Democrats, and Populists, three political parties of the day, all proposed income tax strategies. Then everything ran into Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Before the Pollock case, all income taxes were considered excise taxes and were required to be imposed with geographical uniformity. You see now why the Revenue Act of 1861 and 1862 were percentage based and imposed across the Union. Excise taxes are not required to be apportioned among the States. Only direct taxes are required to be apportioned.

The Court in the Pollock case decided that certain taxes, for instance income from real property, were indeed direct taxes and had to be apportioned. Ownership played a key role in the Court's decision. Ownership is circumstantial but necessary. The tax was on the income of the property. Now the source of income is relevant - wage versus property. From this point forward a personal income income tax, i.e., a tax on wages, is considered indirect and is required to be imposed with geographic uniformity. It was this way from 1895 until 1913.

In the presidential race of 1912, three candidates advocated an income tax: Democrat Woodrow Wilson, Progressive Theodore Roosevelt, and Republican William Howard Taft. Ironically, Taft had started the process in 1909 by proposing a constitutional amendment and 2% tax on the income of corporations. A month later Congress sent a proposal to the state legislatures. Opponents balked at the phrase from whatever source derived. Congress essentially has unlimited power to tax nearly anything they want. It can tax any sort of income as long as its applied with geographic uniformity.

The ratification process of the Sixteenth ended under Woodrow Wilson, February 3, 1913. On hearing that Delaware would be the thirty-sixth state to ratify the amendment, Philander Knox, the Secretary of State, announced the good news. Except, it wasn't really news yet. Delaware merely acknowledged that it would ratify, it hadn't done the deed yet. On hearing the news, New Mexico and two other states ratified the amendment on February 3 and February 4. A clear case of premature ratification. It was followed shortly by the Revenue Act of 1913 which re-instituted the a federal income tax. The only thing remaining is in which bank the new tax revenue would be deposited.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed in December, 1913. History is satisfied to say that the reason was to prevent panics on banks by being a bank's bank. There had been several panics for impetus, especially the 1907 panic. Before 1913, the country's relationship with central banking ran in fits and starts. The first and second attempts at centralized banking in the 18th century failed due to alarming foreign influence and fictitious credit. The idea of a private bank peaked again in the late 19th and early 20th century. It had staunch support from progressive democrats, who called for a decentralized reserve system out of the reach of industrial bankers. Since that time the role and responsibilities of the Fed have grown.

The Fed today has five parts: A board of governors appointed by the president of the U.S., an open market committee, twelve privately owned banks, several investing subscriber banks, and expert committees as needed. Even today, the Fed, created to prohibit panics, still controls the national economy and is a last resort lender providing liquid assets (money) to public banks on a short term basis. One of these loans was the famous AIG debacle of 2008. As the only central bank it controls the nation's currency, and manages government securities. In the role of controlling the flow of currency, it buys paper and coin money from the U.S. Treasury at a low cost, about 4 cents per paper bill.

As the federal bank your tax money flows into the Federal Reserve. The government borrows against projected tax revenues, this becomes the national debt. The national deficit is a budget shortfall that will, most likely, turn into national debt. The money is distributed among the subscriber banks who act to loan money to each other and the banks we citizens use.

After all this, does it seem to you there might be a fly in the ointment? Remember the board of governors? Remember why the Federal Reserve was commissioned? The democrats wanted a decentralized reserve system out of the reach of bankers and avoiding alarming foreign influence and fictitious credit. We have a foundational private banking system created to be independent of corruption, advised by people it was created to avoid, Wall Street bankers. We have foreign governments with huge investments in U.S. banks taking loans from the Federal Reserve. We have a tax system the founding architects wanted to avoid: a direct non-apportioned excise tax that sounds suspiciously like a capitation or head tax. Makes one wonder.

Announcing...

I'm pleased to announce the anticipated release of my newest novel, a historical fiction set in the early 1970's.

In the winter of 1973 the U.S. was facing several crises. The OPEC oil embargo caused gasoline shortages and record oil prices. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost almost 49% and a deep recession stagnated the national economy. The war in Vietnam had expanded to Cambodia. The Watergate scandal polluted the Office of the President. Tricky Dick was accused of obstructing justice. Articles of impeachment were being drafted by the Senate.

What else could go wrong?

The opportunistic collaboration of three groups. Their individual efforts pinch off 40% of U.S. railroad transportation, incite an income tax revolt four million strong, forced cessation of all government activities on all American Indian reservations and the symbolic secession of a small Texas town.

What caused it?

A short chronicle of government violence lists those slaughtered by the National Guard at North Carolina State in 1968, the brutality at the Democratic National Convention also 1968, the Jackson State killings in 1970, and four killed at Kent State, Ohio in May 1970. The violence, the killings, the injustice was the ignition of complete social outrage. Outrage is why it didn’t end. Outrage is why the whole generation didn’t go home and take their daddy’s job. In the wake of Kent State, it was shouted in spray paint on bed sheets hung from the dormitory windows of New York University and for many in 1973 it still echoed - They can’t kill us all.

Available December 2009 from Amazon and other booksellers!
Holiday orders email: americanrev_book@me.com.
thanks! Dave