This is another of the mistakes of modern jurisprudence, whereby existential and relativistic…
arthur lecuyer

money also becoming speech.

I actually kind of like the Citizens United ruling in a way, and not as I’ve ever seen it interpreted since it came out.

I have reckoned all my life, that the grounds for declining to do any business whatsoever with IRS, is based on not any question of what a person owes or doesn’t owe as some fee for making a living in their own country, but that how a person goes about it, simply never was any of officialdom’s business to inquire into or be informed about under compulsion.

The Citizens ruling, is one of the few I have actually read all the way through. It’s been awhile, but what I remember is that the majority opinion uses the term “First Amendment” so many times I lost count, in doing exactly what you say: equating money, with speech.

Works for me.

If or when this “IRS” ever decides that my 10–12 grand a year is worth going after to try and get what they wrongfully claim is their cut of it, it is the legal logic of Citizens I mean to use in standing my ground, along with the Fifth Amendment, to say “first off, what I do or don’t do with money is none of your affair to prohibit the free exercise thereof, and secondly, how dare you try and get me to send you a bunch of documents in my own hand, saying it is.”

It might hold up or it might not, but I have considered government interrogation and the condition of burden of proof under duress placed wrongfully on the accused, to be the obvious reason that the entire income taxation system has been an anti-constitutional coup d’etat all along. I consider it an act of patriotism to refuse to take part in it, and an act of treason to capitulate to it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.