SUPPORTING BRIEF #1: THE PERVERSION OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS, Page 4
************************************************************************
The legislative powers that Congress unconstitutionally delegated to the executive in the spring of 1933 is progressively being expanded. Just two years after 1933, the executive is now writing Revenue Bills! This represents the laws that impose taxation upon the people and the penalties for violation of those laws. The President, in effect, had the powers of a monarch. History has shown that monarchial powers have always had a detrimental effect upon Liberty. The Magna Carta of 1215 was only achieved with sword in hand.
Other profound remarks came from the floor of the House regarding the 1935 Revenue Bill. Congressman Smith, a democrat, stated:
"The provisions of this bill are a clear and complete abdication by the Congress of the United States of its functions, and a delegation by the Congress to the President, or whomsoever he may select, of the legislative duties imposed upon this body."
Mr. Robinson of Kentucky stated:
"If this bill is passed in substantially the form in which it has been sent to Congress by the President, Congress ought to quit and go home... If this force bill is adopted as sent over here by the administration, President Roosevelt will have more dictatorial power than Hitler in Germany or Mussolini in Italy."
Mr. Blanton of Texas stated:
"Has this Congress abdicated? Why, no. We are legislating 	now.... We have no Caesar in the White House. We have no Sulla there. We have no Louis XIV giving us commands. We have no Hitler or Mussolini there at the other end of the avenue."
Mr. Short of Missouri stated:
"Not a single dictator in all Europe has the power with the money back of him that the present occupant of the White House has."
Mr. Blanton of Texas stated:
"No, they have not, because our President has the power to do good. He has the power to relieve suffering. He has the power to restore self-respect, self-reliance, initiative and self-	support in the breasts of American manhood." ibid., pg. 7.
It turned out that a "gage rule" was imposed upon the entire Revenue Bill of 1935. The entire bill was sent to Congress and they were not permitted to open it and change or amend it! It was only after a minority of Democrats, uniting with Republicans, that obliged the administration forces to open Sections 4 and 6 to amendment. As the article pointed out, "that was the utmost concession".
Here we will now see the reason the word "willful" was inserted into the tax laws. In the Supreme Court case of Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192, the court stated that the reason Congress inserted the word "willful" into the tax codes was due to the complexity of the codes. The complexity of the codes cannot be denied. However the real reason will now be brought to bear.
The article goes on to say:
"It was permitted in the House to debate this language, but not to touch it. That part of the text was sacred where the administration forces were in control. They were not strong enough, however, to withhold Sections 4 and 6 from amendment. Those contained the grants of administrative power.
Paragraph (c) of Section 4 authorized the President to-
'Consolidate, redistribute, abolish or transfer the functions and/or duties of, and transfer the property and/or personnel of, any governmental agency (including a corporation).'
The unlimited word there was 'any'. The President would have received the power to change or abolish any governmental agency whatever. By amendment, the word 'emergency' was inserted after the word 'any', making it read that the President could change or abolish only 'any emergency' agency of the Government.
Paragraph (d) of Section 4 gave the President power to-
'Post pone, but not beyond June 30, 1937, the termination of the existence of any existing governmental agency (including a corporation) designated and utilized under this section.'
What did that mean? It was thought to mean that, as to NRA, for example, the President would have only in some way to designate and utilize it under H.J Res. 117 in order to possess the power to extend it for two years, with no let or hindrance by Congress. The House struck that out.
Then Section 6, authorizing the President to prescribe such rules and regulations as he might deem necessary to carry out the purposes of the resolution- all, so far, as usual- but then going on to say, 'and any violation of any such rule or regulation shall be punishable by a fine of not to exceed $5000 or imprisonment for not to exceed two years, or both.'
What did that paragraph mean? It meant that Congress would be delegating to the President the power in his own discretion to make innumerable rules and regulations that would have the force of criminal law- therefore, himself to impose upon the country a new body of criminal statutes. It meant more than that. The President having been authorized to delegate the power delegated to him, it meant that bureaus in Washington- bureaus to an unprecedented number and of kinds yet to be created- severally pursuing ideas of how to promote the general welfare, ideas of relieving economic maladjustments, ideas of improving living and working conditions, would have the power to make innumerable rules and regulations, each to have the force of criminal law. Bureaus, therefore, appointed bureaucrats, imposing upon the country an unlimited number and variety of what, in effect, would be criminal statutes.
What the House did with that paragraph was to write the word 'willful' into the text, after the word 'any', making to to read for 'any willful violation'; then to insert a period after $5000, and strike out the words, 'or imprisonment for not to exceed two years, or both." ibid., pp. 36, 38.
After reading this excerpt from this article, what do you think was the real reason behind Congress inserting the word "willful" into the tax codes? It was this: To give the people some shield of protection from the awesome powers of the executive branch of government.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." Art. I, § 8, U.S. Const.
There is absolutely no constitutional authority vested in the executive branch of government to lay and collect taxes. To vest such authority in the executive branch would be the same as vesting taxing powers in a monarch.
This article in The Saturday Evening Post of June 22, 1935 is important. The Social Security Act came into being in this same year. Hence, the question arises: How much of the Social Security Act was written in the executive? Does not the Social Security Act impose taxation upon the people? Let us consider another question: What force do laws have that disseminate from a body of government functioning in a de facto capacity in violation of the prescribed rules for making laws in the Constitution? The violence done the Constitution during this period of our history is appalling and the victims (common people), who are so easily preyed upon, were totally unaware of the threat to their Liberty.
Two articles in The Saturday Evening Post of March 7 & 14, 1936 dealt with the Social Security laws. It is interesting that such an Act that so profoundly effected the people was reported by the writers of the free press and no representative of the people would come forward to explain this substantial law or the intent behind the law.
This point was brought out by Mr. Lorimer in his Saturday Evening Post editorial of August 31, 1935 entitled "A Disturbing element".
"Nor has most of the new legislation been adequately discussed or at all well understood by the public at large, which, indeed, is simply bewildered by the hurry, the drive and the casual haphazard irresponsibility with which new measures are driven through. Nor in most cases has Congress itself, any more than the country at large, appeared to know what the excitement was all about." ibid., pg. 22.
In his June 22, 1935 editorial under the heading "Omnibus" we read:
"Nothing more aptly illustrates the way in which Executive authority has been spreading under New Deal legislation than the use which has been made of the so-called omnibus method. An omnibus bill, as the reader knows, is one covering or providing for many different objects. It is an extremely objectionable legislative device, because it confuses conscientious lawmakers and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to examine with care proposals that are in the bill, thus assuring a minimum amount of informed legislative scrutiny.... The 'emergency' became the classic and conventional excuse for every kind and degree of confusion, for every form of governmental scrambled eggs. But, while this sort of thing went on in the spring and summer of 1933, it ought not to be tolerated again. The holding company, banking and social security bills, as written, were striking examples of omnibus legislation, but most, if not all, of their features had no relation whatever to any emergency. No such excuse is available; they were simon-pure examples of the growth of Executive dominance." ibid., pg. 22.
This answers the question as to why no representative would come forward and explain the social security act to the people. How could Congress understand laws that they didn't write? As Mr. Lorimer put it in another one of his editorials, Congress was dubbed as the "yes-sir-coming-sir" Congress. When the President wanted a law passed written by the executive, he would call Congress forward for rubber-stamping. Congress had very little knowledge of the laws they were passing.
Going back to the articles on Social Security, we read in the March 7 issue:
"On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. He used a series of pens for his signature. He gave each pen, after it had done its share, to one or another of the men and women who had taken part in shaping the new law and easing its way through Congress." ibid., pg. 10.
Who wrote the Social Security Act? It is clear that the bulk, if not all, of the Act was written in the executive and sent to Congress just the same as the 1935 Revenue Bill. Where's Congress?!
The article goes further to say:
"The Act sets up, for example, such innovations as these:
A Federal income tax that goes all the way down to the bottom of the economic scale, taking toll from every man or woman, boy or girl, who works for wages, no matter how low. Is that not new in our national scheme of things or not?" ibid., pg. 10.
Here is the point in history where income taxation was imposed directly upon the labor of the individual. Up to this point in our history, the individual who did nothing more than provide their labor had the full benefit of the fruits of that labor. This all was changed in 1935. The federal government made "taxpayers" out of millions of Americans that before 1935 were not "taxpayers".
The article goes further to say:
"No political party or individual politician is likely to try to tamper with the Social Security Act, unless by way of expanding its scope and enlarging its benefits, for its principle is rooted in the widespread and growing popular belief that Uncle Sam is Santa Claus." ibid., pg. 10.
Indeed, the Social Security Act has been expanded considerably since 1935. Just look at how the social security number assigned to individuals is used today in comparison to the way it was used originally. The number was originally intended just to identify each individual for the purposes of social security. Now its a universal Identification Number that is broadly used for innumerable purposes. It is also interesting to note that the original Social Security Act (74th Congress. Sess.I. Ch. 531, Aug. 14, 1935, U.S. Stat. at Large, pp. 620-647.) does not even address the issue of assigning social security numbers to individuals. The Act however, did delegate enormous powers to the executive to make rules and regulations to administer the Act. Therefore, it must have been by some decree of one of these executive bureaucracies that brought the social security number into being. For example, under the heading of "COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF TAXES" we read:
"Sec. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury..." ibid., pg. 637. (emphasis added)
Recall Mr. Hoover's comment that the continuance of "New Deal" measures would lead to the "vesting of taxing powers in executive officials." Just one year after he penned these words it became so. The Social Security Act brought the taxing powers under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury in violation of Article I, § 8. It is the Congress that is supposed to direct the taxing powers, not the Executive.
Consider an excerpt from the March 14, 1935 article on social security.
"If you've never paid an income tax before, you're going to begin to learn something about doing business with Uncle Sam. What's more you're probably going to be fingerprinted, and have your identification marks filed in Washington. Think it over a minute." ibid., pg. 43.
We are all aware that the identifying process became social security numbers. Who was it that was empowered to make this decision that numbers will be assigned to citizens to identify them as "taxpayers".?
"The Act requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to adopt 'methods necessary or helpful in... securing proper identification of the taxpayer.'" ibid., pg. 43.
Thus, there is a strong presumption that it was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, acting under the authority of the Executive, that made the determination that numbers would be assigned to American workers and identify them as "taxpayers". In short, it was not a congressional act that gave workers numbers, it was an executive decision.
Hence, the beginnings of gathering information for the federal government on American workers had its roots. I do not see how it can be denied that this has been greatly expanded over the ensuing years to the level it is today. As Justice Douglas stated in the case of Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105:
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment." supra, 63 S. Ct. Rptr., pg. 871
The power to directly tax the labor of the individual confers the power to control and/or suppress the enjoyment of the exercise the individual's right to labor.
"It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing his strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him, as it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper'" Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c, 10. Butchers' Union, Etc. Co. v. Crescent City, Etc. Co., 111 US 746, S. Ct. Rptr. at page 661.
The Supreme Court for a century and a half had strongly upheld the individual's right to labor and forbade any governmental encroachment upon that sacred property right (the only exception to this rule were slaves). Thus, the political thinking on this most sacred property right was perverted in 1935. The March 7 article listed 12 items that were included in the Social Security Act.
1. Grants of Federal funds to the states for the care of their 	indigent old people.
2. Similar grants to states for the care of dependent 	children.
3. Allotments of Federal funds to the states for maternal and child-health services.
4. Annual approbations from the Federal Treasury for aid to crippled children.
5. Federal co-operation, financial and otherwise, with the states in child-welfare services.
6. Continuation of Federal co-operation with the states in the vocational rehabilitation of persons disabled "in industry or otherwise."
7. Federal financial assistance to states for local public health-services and the training of their personnel.
8. Grants to states to enable them to furnish financial assistance to the needy blind.
9. A permanent national system of unemployment compensation, controlled by the Federal Government, but administered by the several states, which makes each state responsible for determining at what wage and for how long unemployed workers shall receive pay when out of work, and paying them such compensation out of the proceeds of a new Federal tax on employers, in addition to any similar taxes levied by the state.
10. Topping the whole structure of social security, there is set up a scheme of old-age benefits, under which every wage earner, with certain exemptions, is to be retired on a Federal pension at the age of sixty-five. The states, as such, have nothing to do with this part of the system; it is wholly Federal.
11. An excise tax on employers, figured on the size of their 	pay rolls. There are, in fact, two different pay roll taxes. No employer in business or industry, large or small, can escape one or the other of these pay roll taxes; most will have to pay both. Each begins with a modest 1 per cent of the pay roll. The unemployment compensation tax began to accrue at that rate on January 1, 1936. It rises to 2 per cent for 1937, then to 3 per cent for 1938 and thereafter. The old-age benefit tax on employers begins at 1 per cent for 1937, then rises by triennial jumps of 1/2 per cent until it, too, reaches 3 per cent maximum in 1949. Then and thereafter, under the Act, employers will pay 6 per cent of their pay rolls in excise taxes for social security. The old-age tax is not levied on salaries or wages above $300 a year. Employers of fewer than eight persons are exempt from the unemployment tax. All other employers must pay this tax on their entire pay rolls, including the salaries of the highest executive.
12. An income tax on all wage earners, levied directly on their pay envelopes, for old-age benefits. It is to be deducted from all regular wage or salary payments every payday, and turned over to the Federal Treasury. This tax runs at the same rates as the old-age benefit tax levied on employers; beginning on January 1, 1937, the rate is 1 per cent. It applies, however, only to wages or salaries below 	$3000 a year. If you earn more than $250 a month, you don't have to pay this tax on the excess above that income. Every third year thereafter the rate goes up by 1/2 per cent, until in 1949 it is running at 3 per cent of every workers pay. ibid., pp. 11, 70.