Not so short and clear after all | AspenTimes.com

Not so short and clear after all

Dear Editor:

To Anthony Hershey and Phil Burnett (letters, Jan. 24): As I understand Mr. Hershey is a lawyer and public servant, I am surprised by his ignorance of constitutional law. Both of you assume that by simply quoting the 16th Amendment, you enlighten our community. Mr. Hershey’s words “A short and clear Amendment.” In fact, it is just the opposite.

The Supreme Court decides on what a constitutional amendment declares. Here is a quote from Brushaber, the landmark decision concerning the 16th Amendment.

“Taxation on income is in its nature an excise (indirect) tax entitled to be enforced as such.” Much doubt is dispelled in Stanton v. Baltic. “The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited income taxation from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.”

The Harvard Law Review confirms “In Brushaber Mr. Chief Justice White construed the amendment as a declaration that an income tax is indirect rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned.” The Constitution decrees that indirect taxes must be uniform. Income tax is not uniform. The above quotes assert exactly opposite to what you gentlemen think the amendment states. Still think it is short and clear?

It is my sincere belief that the above are but a few of many reasons why our government insists filing is based on “voluntary compliance” and never, ever states the law that requires filing in an open, public forum. It’s quite a tale.

What can a free people do when their government refuses to state the law that gives them the right to tax us? The only non-violent resolution is to turn to the Constitution (praise the Founding Fathers). The First Amendment grants the people the right to petition their government for redress of grievances. Which we did. Thousands, legally, respectfully, petitioned the president, Congress, the IRS, the Justice Dept. to please, please simply “show us the law.”

Not a peep. So we took our case, years of effort, tons of money and always, always, oppressed by tyranny (We The People Foundation website), to the steps of the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on what the First Amendment proclaims in relation to petitioning. Without comment the Court refused to hear our case.

Freedom is plummeting into tyranny. By the way gentlemen, here is another quote from Brushaber: “If acceded to (a direct tax without apportionment) would cause radical and destructive changes to our constitutional system.” Therefore, it wasn’t acceded to. However, the American people have been terrorized into believing it was.

Here is the legal term that describes the situation we are in. Color of law; the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. Awaiting your reply.

Will Kesler

Snowmass Village


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.