SUPPORTING BRIEF #4: LIMITATIONS OF FEDERAL POWER - THE DRED SCOTT DECISION OF 1857, Page 4
**********************************************************************
Justice Curtis went further to say that the status of slavery, as far as marriage is concerned, is something that will "destroy the obligation of the contract of marriage, and bastardize their issue." supra. 601. The fact of the matter may be a bitter pill, but the principle of law is simple and straightforward; there can be no lawful marriage between people who are in a condition of slavery. The offspring of such a marriage are not the fruit of the parents, but of the master; and if the master is the state, then the state becomes the respondeat superior.
Does the superior right to the labor of another human being adversely effect his rights? One would think that bastardizing the issue of marriage would do so. However the salveholders thought not.
"As it is their duty to labor, so the law which compels them to do so is not oppressive. It deprives them of the enjoyment of no right, unless, indeed, they may be supposed to have a right to violate their duty. Hence, in compelling the colored population of the South to work, the law does not deprive them of liberty, in the true sense of the word; that is, it does not deprive them of the enjoyment of any natural right. It merely requires them to perform a natural duty." Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments, pp. 402-403.
Maybe the people should bear this in mind when the government tells us it is our duty to pay our fare share.
"When we say that slaves are property, we merely mean that their masters have a right to their service or labor." ibid., pg. 430.
This is a point that needs to be emphasized. Slavery is not the ownership of a human being, it is a superior right to the labor of the human being. If the state can, by the use of its tax laws, despoil you of the fruits of your labor, then you are not a citizen but a slave. Even though this may be the bitter truth, how is it concealed? Obviously, it has not yet become oppressive enough for many people to realize its existence. Also, the state makes no effort to reveal the voluntary nature of the taxation, thereby perpetuating the ignorance of the masses. However, this cannot remain hidden forever. The more oppressive the servitude becomes, the more people will feel its effects and become alerted to its existence. In fact, the slaveholders succeeded in deceiving the people of the South for long time. Hinton Helper, in his book The Impending Crisis in the South: How To Meet It (A.B. Burdick, N.Y., 1860) pointed this out. He stated on pages 59-60:
"For a long time, it is true, they have succeeded in deceiving the people, in keeping them humbled in the murky sloughs of poverty and ignorance, and instilling into their untutored minds passions and prejudices expressly calculated to strengthen and protect the accursed institution of slavery; but, thanks to heaven, their inglorious reign is fast drawing to a close; with irresistible brilliancy, and in spite of the interdict of tyrants, light from the pure fountain is now streaming over the dark places of our land, and, ere long- mark our words- there will ascend from Delaware, and from Texas, and from all the intermediate States, a huzzah for Freedom and for Equal Rights, that will utterly confound the friends of despotism, set at defiance the authority of usurpers, and carry consternation to the heart of every slavery-propagandist."
It should be noted that once the slaveholders of the South came to the realization that their political conspiracy to make slavery universal and perpetual was thwarted by the efforts of the people aided by Lincoln, they invoked the iron hand of tyranny to try and accomplish their goals. This resulted in their attempt to break apart the Union and resulted in the Civil War.
The case of Cheek v. U.S. (1990 term) was the first case I was able to find where a wage earner was before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the income tax laws. He never once addressed the issue of slavery and involuntary servitude. Instead he used what the court in the seventh circuit dubbed the "stock arguments of the tax protester movement". The following items the seventh circuit listed warrant our attention. They are: 1. the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being; 2. the belief the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally; 3. the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment; 4. the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional; 5. the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws; 6. the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and; 7. the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income. The seventh circuit also added that "We have no doubt that this list will increase with time." (see footnote #6 of the case)
This statement indicates that the courts realize that the opposition to the income tax will continue to increase. This is only logical. Over the period of 60 years, we have seen the rate of taxation imposed upon earned income (labor) increase from 0% in 1936 to over 30% today.
Government regulation and control of our economic freedoms indeed does adversely effect our other freedoms, and, I do not see how it can be denied, that when a people place their economic freedoms into the hands of government, they place themselves in a position that could result in servitude. After all, politicians are not gods that sit High upon Olympus, they are mere human beings that, unfortunately, can be corrupted with power. They may so strongly believe that their cherished ideals will work that they become like drunken madmen speeding down the highway with no intention of changing course or reducing speed.
The political world will continue to squabble about this and that. However, as far as the law is concerned, there are serious constitutional issues that it is imperative that this court rule upon.
Again, the Cheek case was the first case I found in the Supreme Court Reporters (I researched them from 1916 thru 1993) that addressed the issue of the constitutionality of the income tax laws upon a wage earner. Wages represent compensation paid for labor. It is ironic that the word "labor" did not once appear in the whole case. With this in mind, again consider the following excerpt from the case.
"Where possible, court interprets congressional enactments so as to avoid raising serious constitutional questions." Cheek v. U.S., 498 US 192, 111 S. Ct. Rptr., pg. 605
When an individual stops filing and paying income tax on the compensation they are paid for their labor, sooner or later, the IRS will send them the standardized threat letter which states that if you don't comply with their "request", they will "sieze your wages." Bearing in mind that wages and labor are synonymous terms, they could also say "sieze your labor." It means the same thing.
The individual who labors, and is compensated for that labor in the form of money, by the Constitution, should have the following constitutionally protected rights, not only from the federal government, but all local and state governments: 1. The privacy of their books and papers (4th Amend.); 2. The right to the fruits of their labor (13th Amend.); and the right to a free labor market (5th, 9th, & 14th Amend.).
I realize that slavery and involuntary servitude is a bitter pill for many people to admit, especially in America. However, we must not be so blind to deny the fact that such a thing can exist in any political system. In fact, it exists today in China and other countries. All we need to do is extirpate it before it becomes too oppressive.
When a large enough number of the people become aware of the fact that the nation is being reduced into a state of slavery and involuntary servitude, there will be two choices left to the government. Those will be: 1. Restore to the people their right to labor, or; 2. Invoke the iron hand of tyranny. There will be no middle ground.
Politicians may squabble over many things, but there is always the stabilizing factor of the law.
Consuetudo semel reprobata non potest amplius induci. Custom once disallowed cannot again be produced. Dav. 33; Grounds & Rud. of Law 53.
Droit ne poet pas morier. Right cannot die. Jenk. Cent. 100.
Quotiens dubia interpretatio libertatis est, secundum liberatem respondendum erit. Whenever there is a doubt between liberty and slavery, the decision must be in favor of liberty. Dig. 50. 17. 20.
We will now consider the dissenting opinions of Justices McLean and Curtis in the Dred Scott decision. As we have already seen, the court took the position that Dred Scott's status of slave barred him from suing in the federal courts. Such a right was only conferred upon those who ranked as citizens.
Justice McLean stated:
"But, it is said, if the court, on looking at the record, shall clearly perceive that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, it is a ground for the dismissal of the case. This may be characterized as rather a sharp practice, and one which seldom, if ever, occurs. No case was cited in the argument as authority, and not a single case precisely on point is recollected in our reports. The pleadings do not show a want of jurisdiction.... Under such circumstances, the want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court must be so clear as not to admit of doubt." Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393, 531.
It is, indeed, a sharp practice today that denies people the right to sue in the federal courts against violations of constitutionally protected rights by government officials for a want of jurisdiction.
A plea in abatement must be complete in itself.
"No implication can aid a plea in abatement or in bar; it must be complete in itself; the facts stated, if true, must abate or bar the right of the plaintiff to sue." supra., 532.
The council for Sanford argued "that if the court take jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff is free, the assumption is against the right of the master." supra. However, Justice McLean, quoting from Jacob v. Sharp, Meigs' Tenn. 114 stated that "it must be construed to be subordinate to the higher and more important right of freedom." supra.
Justice McLean pointed out "that the Constitution was intended to be a practical instrument; and where its language is too plain to be misunderstood, the argument ends." supra., 533.
Part of Sanford's arguments were "that a colored citizen would not be an agreeable member of society. This is more a matter of taste than of law." supra. The argument today that the laboring class of Americans have a duty to pay their fair share is more a matter of taste than of law. As already pointed out, if all the government wanted was revenue, it could be collected far more efficiently by taxing commerce.
Justice McLean said "that slavery is limited to the range of the laws under which it is sanctioned." supra., 534. Correspondingly today, is not the servitude imposed upon the laboring class sanctioned by the Internal Revenue Code?
In the Somersett's case, decided before the American Revolution in England, Lord Mansfield stated:
"The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself, from whence it was created, is erased from the memory; it is of a nature that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law." supra., 535.
Reinforcing this proposition, Justice McLean stated:
"It is immaterial whether a system of slavery was introduced by express law, or otherwise, if it have the authority of law. There is no slave state where the institution is not recognized and protected by statutory enactments and judicial decisions. Slaves are made property by the laws of the slave States, and as such are liable to the claims of creditors; they descend to heirs, are taxed, and in the South they are a subject of commerce." supra., 535, 536.
Perhaps now we can understand the full import of the congressional intent behind the declaration in the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 731, 15 USC § 17, 15 USCA, § 17 ) that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce." It is an extreme contradiction that the same Congress that brought the 16th Amendment into being and the first income tax laws pursuant to the amendment (38 Stat. 166), would at the same time use the income tax to despoil the people of the fruits of their labor, thereby making the labor of the people an article of commerce.
A simple statement by Justice McLean sums up the issue. He stated: "Slavery is emphatically a state institution." supra., 536.
Speaking on the commercial powers of Congress, Justice McLean stated: "If this trade were subject to the commercial power, it would follow that Congress could abolish or establish slavery in every State of the Union." supra., 537. It is pretty much common knowledge that the federal government thinks it can regulate and control virtually everything under the commerce clause and the promoting of the general welfare, including the labor of the people.
"But we know as a historical fact, that James Madison, that great and good man, a leading member of the Federal Convention, was solicitous to guard the language of that instrument so as not to convey the idea that there could be property in man.... I prefer the lights of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, as a means of construing the Constitution in all its bearings, rather than to look behind that period, into a traffic which is now declared to be piracy, and punished by death by Christian nations. I do not like to draw the sources of our domestic relations from so dark a ground. Our independence was a great epoch in the history of freedom; and while I admit the government was not made especially for the colored race, yet many of them were citizens of the New England States, and exercised the rights of suffrage when the Constitution was adopted, and it was not doubted by any intelligent person that its tendencies would greatly ameliorate their condition." supra.
Abraham Lincoln, in his writings and speeches, said that if slavery was firmly established in law upon the negro race, it would not stop with the negro. He stated:
"And when, by all these means, you have succeeded in dehumanizing the negro; when you have put him down and made it impossible for him to be but as the beasts of the field; when you have extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out as in the darkness of the damned, are you quite sure that the demon you have roused will not turn and rend you?" The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, (The Tandy- Thomas Co., N.Y., 1905.), Vol. XI, pg. 110.
Justice McLean also brought this issue to bear.
"But if we are to turn our attention to the dark ages of the world, why confine our view to colored slavery? On the same principles white men were made slaves. All slavery has its origin in power, and is against right." Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393, 538.
Referring to The Atlantic Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511,
Justice McLean stated:
"Did Chief Justice Marshall, in saying that Congress governed a Territory, by exercising the combined powers of the federal and state governments, refer to unlimited discretion? A government which can make white men slaves? Surely, such a remark in the argument must have been inadvertently uttered. On the contrary, there is no power in the Constitution by which Congress can make either white or black men slaves.... No powers can be exercised which are prohibited by the Constitution, or which are contrary to its spirit; so that, whether the object may be the protection of the persons and property of purchasers of the public lands, or of communities who have been annexed to the Union by conquest or purchase, they are initiatory to the establishment of state governments, and no more power can be claimed or exercised, than is necessary to the attainment of the end. This is the limitation of all the federal powers." supra., 542.