That’s an assertion, not an argument. If a case got to the SCOTUS regarding either the presumption that federal income tax is constitutional, or any of the given loopholes, they could adjudicate it. They could even repudiate previous judicial adjudications on the matter.
Or, say for example, the SCOTUS ruled that federal regulations as a whole are an unconstitutional delegation of congressional responsibility to unelected bureaucrats — the entire tax code could be deemed unconstitutional, and Congress would have to actually draft and debate and pass the exact law, rather than leaving regulations up to the executive.
I think that money in politics is a symptom, not the problem. I see it much the same way I see obesity, which is generally an effect seen when insulin resistant people consume too much carbohydrate. If I were to attack it with liposuction, or through gastric bypass surgery, I might see some results, but I’m missing the true root cause here — carbohydrate intake.
Regarding the irrational lawfare of the left regarding border security, I refer you to the Hawaii judge who has been fighting against the executive order which pauses entry into the United States from a select group of countries identified by the Obama administration, until further more appropriate anti-terror vetting procedures can be put in place. Their liberal (pun intended) use of judicial injunctions here and their specious arguments are dishonoring the tradition of an independent judiciary — they’re acting as partisans trying to force a result, not judges deciding constitutionality.
Oh, and I’ll also note that the Democrat party was the only pro-slavery party in the history of the United States :) There are some strong arguments that to this day, they don’t have the best interests of minorities at heart, but rather attempt to keep them on the democratic “plantation” for votes. Dinesh D’Souza has some wonderful work exposing that scam, if you can get over his rather nerdy and arrogant exterior.
Back to the issue at hand, I wonder — would you be in support of tying campaign finance changes you propose to legislation that would explicitly limit the government’s power? Maybe there is a compromise solution here where we attack both sides of the issue at the same time, say like liposuction and carbohydrate restriction simultaneously.