SUPPORTING BRIEF #1: THE PERVERSION OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS, Page 3
************************************************************************
Remember that these tremendous shifts of powers were only supposed to be "temporary" to get through the "emergency". Now, just one year after the "emergency" session of Congress in 1933, we see that the executive wants to consolidate and make permanent many of the mass of new deal laws that were rubber stamped by Congress. When Jefferson said that "power corrupts" he wasn't kidding around. Mr. Hoover pointed out the proper function of the federal government in a time of economic crisis.
"Under our system relief is first the obligation of the individual to his neighbors, then of institutions, then of local communities, and then of State governments. The moment the need exceeds the honest capacities of the local agencies, then they must have support of the Federal Government as the final reservoir of national strength." ibid., pg. 5.
The new deal administration circumvented all of this and set itself above all other local and state agencies as the great almoner of social welfare. What would be the ultimate consequences to all of this? Mr. Hoover goes further.
"It is not my purpose to discuss the constitutionality of the many measures and acts upon which National Regimentation has been based. Whatever that situation may be, to adhere to the spirit of the Constitution and its safeguards, including orderly amendment, is the shelter of American life. To move away from these safeguards endangers the whole future of the philosophy of Liberty and thus the whole future of America.. On that road one misstep leads to another and then another until primary liberties are gone.
"We have already noted many examples of the violation by Regimentation of the spirit and philosophy of liberty. We may add further particulars which indicate where continuance of such a system will lead. They include instances of refusal of the right of men accused of wrong to be heard by independent tribunal; the cancellation of contracts with the Government without any semblance of the processes of law; refusal or circumvention of the protection of the courts to citizens seeking redress from the Government's own infringement of constitutional rights; vesting of taxing powers in executive officials; the prosecutions of men for selling goods and services at less than their competitors; the coercion of merchants and manufacturers into accepting the Blue Eagle; and the instances of subsequent withdrawal of it to the ruin of their business by administrative officials, and that without any processes of the courts; the set-up of machinery which in effect dictates what manufacturers and farmers may produce and sell; the coercion of men to sign the codes and then the denial to them of their constitutional protections from administrative action on the ground that they had contracted these projections away to the Government; the coercions of the people to sell a commodity- gold -to the Government for less than it was worth, by denial of an open market and by threats; the whole business of devaluing every insurance policy and every savings-bank deposit; the surrender by the Congress of its most serious responsibility for taxes and expenditures; and the whole invasion of the legislative responsibility, thus weakening the basic safeguards of Liberty. All this, and much more that could be recounted, indicate the way regimentation invades the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution and becomes a transformation of government to the point where the citizen is entirely subjective to the state." ibid., pg. 86. (emphasis added)
Just look at America today and think of these words written over 60 years ago. Has not this come to pass? Are we not coerced into signing the codes just to exercise our basic attribute of economic liberty, that being, our right to labor (example- I.R.S. forms)? Does not the I.R.S. take the position that the individual has signed their constitutional defenses away to the government and that ignorance is no excuse? Is not the I.R.S. and executive bureaucracy under the direction and control of executive officials, namely, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue? Mr. Hoover goes further.
"The threat of the continuance of these 'emergency' measures is a threat to join the Continental retreat of human progress backward through the long corridor of time. In the demands for continuance there lies a mixture of desperate seeking for justification of their adoption and subtle ambitions of those advocating their philosophies. Whatever the motive, the promise of permanence now stares the American people starkly in the face. It is not the mere evolution of an economic procedure that this Regimentation implies- it steps off the solid highways of true American Liberty into the dangerous quicksands of governmental dictation.
"I am anxious for the future of freedom and liberty of men. That America has stood for; that has created her greatness; that is all which the future holds is worth while. Saint Paul said nearly two thousand years ago, 'Ye have been called unto liberty.'" ibid., pg. 88.
Mr. Hoover saw a great danger to the Liberty of future generations by the governmental system of Regimentation that was being put in place in 1933-34.
"The obligation of our generation to them (the children) is to pass on the heritage of liberty which was entrusted to us. To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity was the purpose in the sacrifice of our fathers. We have no right to load upon our children unnecessary debts from our follies, or to force them to meet life in regimented forms which limit their self-expression, their opportunities, their achievements." ibid., pg. 88.
I would submit that probably nobody in America today knows what it would be like to experience the America that our forefather fought and died for. I feel it necessary to now quote in full the last two sections of Mr. Hoover's Set. 15, 1934 article entitled "Consequences to Liberty of Regimentation". May the Court draw their own conclusions.
Our National Heritage
"Liberty comes alone and lives alone where the hard-won rights of men are held unalienable, where governments themselves may not infringe, where governments are indeed but mechanisms to protect and sustain these liberties from encroachment. It was this for which our fathers died, it was this heritage they gave to us. It was not the provisions with regard to interstate commerce or the determination of weights and measures or coinage, for which the Constitution was devised- it was the guaranties that men possessed fundamental liberties apart from the state, that they were not the pawns but the masters of the state. It has not been for the aid and comfort of any form of economic domination that our liberties have been hallowed by sacrifice. It has not been for the comfort of machinery that we have builded and extended these 	liberties, but for the independence and comfort of homes.
"Those who proclaim that in a Machine Age there is created an irreconcilable conflict in which Liberty cannot survive, should not forget the battles of Liberty over the centuries, for let it be remembered that in the end big business and machinery will vanish before freedom if that be necessary. But it is not necessary. It is not because liberty is unworkable, but because we have not worked it or have forgotten its true meaning that we often get the notion of the irreconcilable conflict with the machine age.
"We cannot extend the mastery of government over the daily life of a people without somewhere making it master of people's souls and thoughts. That is going on today. It is part of all Regimentation.
"Even if the government conduct of business could give us the maximum of efficiency instead of least efficiency, it would be purchased at the cost of freedom. It would increase rather than decrease abuse and corruption, stifle initiative and invention, undermine the development of leadership, cripple the mental and spiritual energies of our people, extinguish equality of opportunity, and dry up the spirit of Liberty and the forces which make progress.
The Issue of American Life
"It is false Liberalism that interprets itself into government dictation, or operation of commerce, industry and agriculture. Every move in that direction poisons the very springs of true Liberalism. It poisons political equality, free thought, free press, and equality of opportunity. It is a road not to liberty but to less liberty. True Liberalism is found not in striving to spread bureaucracy, but in striving to set bounds to it. Liberalism is a force proceeding from the deep realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political freedom is to be preserved. True liberalism seeks all legitimate freedom first in the confident belief that without such freedom the pursuit of other blessings is in vain.
"The nation seeks for solution of its many difficulties. These solutions can come alone through the constructive forces from the system built upon Liberty. They cannot be achieved by the destructive forces of Regimentation. The purification of Liberty from abuses, the restoration of confidence in the rights of men, the release of the dynamic forces of initiative and enterprise are alone the methods by which these solutions can be found and the purpose of American life assured.
"The structure of human betterment cannot be built upon foundations of materialism or business, but upon the bed rock of individual character in free men and women. It must be builded by those who, holding to ideals of its high purpose, using the mold of justice, lay brick upon brick from the materials of scientific research, the painstaking sifting of truth from collections of facts and experience, the advancing of ideas, morals and spiritual inspirations. Any other foundations are sand; any other mold is distorted; and any other bricks are without straw.
"I have no fear that the inherent and unconquerable forces of freedom will not triumph. But it is as true today as when first uttered that 'the condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.' We have in our lifetime seen the subjection of Liberty in one nation after another. It has been defeated by the untruth that some form of dictation by government alone can overcome immediate difficulties and can assure entry into economic perfection. America must not and will not succumb to that lure. And that is the issue of our generation. It is not a partisan issue. It is the issue of American life.
"The spark of liberty in the mind and spirit of man cannot be long extinguished; it will break into flames that will destroy every coercion which seeks to limit it." ibid., pg. 89.
This period in our history was indeed the turning point in the way government viewed the exercise of individual liberty. Having this fact in mind, let us now go further into examining the laws that were coming into being during this period. In doing so we will see that the Social Security Act of 1935 was the law that first imposed an income tax at the bottom of the economic scale, that being, directly imposed upon the earned income (labor) of the individual. This completely abandoned the spirit of the income tax laws. Congress in 1913 in no way intended to deprive the citizen of the fruits of their labor through income taxation. Their intent should have been adhered to. We have gone from seeing 1% of wages withheld from employees in 1937 to around 30% today. A stark contrast to the 0% in 1913.
It is also interesting to note how the capitalization and exploitation of ignorance among common working people by using the tax laws to despoil the individual of the fruits of their labor has effected the most basic element of society,- that being, the family unit. 1936 was the last year people were allowed to have the full benefit of the fruits of their labor. According to the government's own vital statistics, in 1936 there were 1,369,000 marriages and 236,000 divorces, a divorce rate of approximately 17%. In 1993, there were 2,334,000 marriages and 1,187,000 divorces, a divorce rate of over 50%. Thus, the capitalization and exploitation of ignorance of common people to despoil them of their labor has seen the divorce rate triple in six decades. The more the government despoils individuals of their labor, the more pressure is brought to bear upon the family unit, and the more families are torn apart. It is ironic that politicians and bureaucrats preach "family values" and cast scorn upon "deadbeat parents" while at the same time capitalizing and exploiting the ignorance of common people to despoil them of the fruits of their labor, thereby destroying the family unit. It is befitting at this juncture to quote Abraham Lincoln's highwayman illustration taken from his Cooper Institute Address of 1860. Lincoln stated: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'" The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. V, pg. 323.
Government regulation and control of our economic freedoms indeed does adversely effect our other freedoms.
MR. FISH: Who was the author of this legislation?
MR. SABATH: The President of the United States.
MR. FISH: Does the gentleman speak with authority?
MR. SABATH: Yes.
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article I, § 1 of the Constitution.
The above dialogue was taken from The Saturday Evening Post article entitled "Surrender of the Purse" found in the June 22, 1935 issue at pages 6-7. It was in reference to a bill submitted to Congress on January 21, 1935 and debate before the Committee on Appropriations on January 23. The bill was H.J.R. 117. It was the Revenue Bill of 1935.
In this same year, 1935, the Social Security Act was made "law". Let us thoroughly examine this 1935 Revenue Bill written in its entirety by the executive branch of government and only amended slightly by Congress. The fact that the 1935 Revenue Bill was written by the executive leads to the presumption that the executive also had a heavy hand in writing the Social Security Act in violation of Article I, § 1 of the Constitution. It therefore cannot be enforced as positive law upon the people.
The rest of the dialogue will now be presented as reported by The Saturday Evening Post of June 22, 1935.
MR. FISH: Does the gentleman say the President approves everything that was in this original joint resolution? I wait for an answer.
MR. SABATH: The principles of the joint resolution have been recommended in the message of the President to Congress.
MR. FISH: I ask who recommended this resolution to the President for his approval?
MR. SABATH: The people, because of the conditions in the nation.
"But it was a nettlesome subject still. A little later Mr. Green arose to say: 'This resolution has, after careful study, been prepared by the President and submitted to Congress.'
"The debate was divided between two days. On the second day Mr. Snell returned to the subject, saying: 'During the debate yesterday, in reply to the specific question by Mr. Fish-- *Who is the author of this bill?*-- Mr. Sabath responded-- *The President of the United States*. Mr Fish further asked-- *Does the gentleman speak with authority?* Mr. Sabath replied-- *Yes*. At a press conference yesterday, the President is quoted as definitely stating that he has never read this bill.'"
"It was a question that apparently did not improve with handling, and yet it could not be let alone. Mr. Buchanan, chairman on the Committee on Appropriations, took the last word. He said: 'The fact is that the President was consulted, and consulted extensively, about the preparation of this bill. He has approved every section as written and as proposed to be amended. He wants it. He has asked me to stay on the floor of the House to those who are co-operating with him that he would like very much to have the bill in the shape it is in.'"
"Whereupon, the House passed it and sent it over to the Senate. Two hearings were held by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Rear Admiral Peoples reappeared, in the chief expository role, yet representing nobody specifically; with him came Mr. Bell, acting director of the Budget Bureau, and a Mr. Hester, of the Treasury. Appeared also Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator of the FERA; Mr. Gill, his assistant, and the Secretary Ikes.
"Mr. Hopkins was asked: 'Did you have anything to do with the drawing of this bill?' He answered: 'No.' He was asked again: 'Did you have anything to do with the original drafting of it?' He answered: 'No, I did not.' Senator Hale asked: 'The specific provisions in it you had nothing to do with?' He answered: 'No, but one of my assistants was called in.'
"Rear Admiral Peoples was being interrogated and Mr. Hester, of the Treasury, was assisting him with his answers, when Senator Dickinson interrupted to ask: 'I would like to know whether or not- did you draft this bill, Mr. Hester?'
MR. HESTER: I worked on it.
SENATOR DICKENSON: Well, were you the principle author of this bill?
MR. BELL: It was done under my supervision, senator.
SENATOR DICKENSON: What is your name?
MR. BELL: Bell.
SENATOR BYRNES (introducing Mr. Bell): Director of the Budget. (acting director only)
MR. BELL: Mr. Hester helped on it.
"Senator Hale wanted more information, and asked: 'This is an administration bill, is it not?'
"The question was addressed to Mr. Hester, but Mr. Bell answered: 'Yes, it is an administration bill. It was drawn under my supervision, Senator Hale.'
SENATOR HALE: Mr. Hester drew it?
MR. BELL: He is a lawyer who assisted me.
SENATOR HALE: Also you adopted the suggestions of Admiral Peoples?
MR. BELL: Admiral Peoples helped on it, also.
SENATOR HALE: Did Mr. Hopkins have anything to do with it?
MR. BELL: His representative, Mr. Gill, deputy administrator, sat 	in.
SENATOR HALE: Senator Couzens said the other day on the floor of the Senate, or referred to a newspaper statement, that the authors of the bill were really Mr. Richberg and Mr. Cohen. Did they help?
MR. BELL: They had nothing to do with it.
SENATOR HALE: After you had drafted it, did you confer with anyone in the House about it, any member of the House?
MR. BELL: The chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
SENATOR HALE: And did you confer with any member of the Senate about it?		
MR. BELL: I personally did not do so.
"At a later point, to a question by Senator Steiwer, touching a change proposed to be made in the language, Rear Admiral Peoples said: 'This is the President's bill, senator. I cannot commit him.'
"And that is all that was ever found out about it." ibid., pg. 7.