By KrisAnne Hall, JD

During the American “Civil War,” politicians figured out a whole new source of revenue…the individual American income.  If they could pull it off, it would invariably be the most consistent revenue stream the American government had ever experienced.  All that was needed was to convince the people that this “inconvenience” was not only necessary, but limited and temporary to meet an immediate need.  Enacted in 1862, this income tax was collected with the consent of the people to fund the War, was limited by income, assessed upon those who made $600 or more a year, and would expire after a set period.

But as we have learned, a power once assumed by government is never temporary and will always increase exponentially.  In 1894 Senator John Sherman, a Republican from Ohio, argued that this “temporary” tax should be made permanent.  He argued that the mechanism of consumption taxes were not “fair” and that the burden of the debt should not rest equally upon the poor, but upon those who can afford the burden.

“A few years of further experience will convince the body of our people that a system of national taxes which rests the whole burden of taxation on consumption, and not one cent on property or income, is intrinsically unjust. . . . [T]he consumption of the rich does not bear the same relation to the consumption of the poor as the income of the one does to the wages of the other.”

The Civil War Tax would expire in 1870 as planned, but subsequent economic challenges would resurrect the drive to create a permanent income tax solution.  The People’s Party would bring the discussion back into the public arena, but it would be the Republican Party, through Presidents Roosevelt and Taft and several key Congressmen who would give this unconstitutional measure its life, with bipartisan support by the Democrat party.

In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt stated that a “graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the supreme court will declare constitutional.”  Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, also appeared to accept the constitutionality and desirability, at least in emergencies, of an income tax. In accepting the Republican nomination in 1908, Taft said, “I believe that an income tax, when the protective system of customs and the internal revenue tax shall not furnish enough for governmental needs, can and should be devised which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, will conform to the Constitution.”

Furthermore, many Republicans had come to Congress willing to join with Democrats and any remaining Populists to push for an income tax.  Even the Republicans were trashing the consumption tax as “unfair” and pushing for a more “balanced” approach to taxation that put the burden of taxation on those who could “afford it.”

Sen. Cummins, a Republican from Iowa said,

“[A]n income tax, levied upon those who ought to bear the burdens of government, . . . will meet even that principle more perfectly than to levy duties upon things that the people must use, and impose the weight of government only by the rule of consumption.”

The question remained, would there be a tax by legislation or a tax by Constitutional Amendment?   In a full on bipartisan push for income tax, Senators Joseph W. Bailey of Texas, a Democrat, and Albert B. Cummins of Iowa, a Republican, both introduced legislation to add an income tax provision, modeled on the 1894 statute, to a tariff bill.  The supreme Court would be an insurmountable obstacle to this measure as this court had repeatedly deemed direct income tax by legislation to be unconstitutional.

President Taft weighed in with support for a constitutional amendment, stressing, among other things, the desirability of “stability of judicial construction of the Constitution.  Instrumental in the push for a Constitutional Amendment was Republican Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. Senator Brown would bring in greater support for the Amendment by proposing the following Amendment language: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes and inheritances.”  Although many did not like the proposal it gave a starting point for real discussion.  The final push for support would come on June 16 when President Taft gave support to a constitutional amendment. The next day, June 17, with the president now on the side of a constitutional amendment, Senator Brown tried again, proposing the following language: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.”  The joint resolution containing the Amendment passed unanimously in the Senate (77- 0), and in the House a week later, after about four hours’ debate, by a vote of 318 to 14.

Let us be reminded that the initial arguments of war time necessity and temporary implementation are completely out the door.  These politicians, both Republican and Democrat, had now devised a way to direct tax the people, contrary to Article 1 section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution.  They have nullified the Constitution and ignored the supreme Court opinions declaring such acts as unconstitutional.  With no “emergency” need and no way of ending this intrusion, the only the justification behind the actions of these legislators that remains is the desire to permanently enrich the government in a way that our founders concluded to be complete despotism.

Perhaps Thomas Paine tapped into a axiomatic truth when he wrote in his Answer to Mr. Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution: ,

“…a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.”

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

On January 6 New York Assemblymen will be asked to vote on a bill that will authorize the Governor and/or health officials to seize custody of New Yorkers, imprison, and force vaccinate them without due process.  This bill is not only a threat to the Constitution of New York, the people of New York, but also everyone in America if you consider the way certain legislation can spread throughout America in the age “crisis.”  We must stay vigilant, not only of our own legislation, but also of that which could impact other States.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Nick Perry (District 58) is titled A-416 “An Act To Amend the public health law, in relation to removal of cases, contacts, and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health.”  This legislation is not only dehumanizing by referring the people of New York as “contacts or carriers” it violates multiple sections of the New York Constitution and robs New Yorkers of their fundamental, inherent rights. 

If passed this legislation will place in the hands of the Governor, or his designated agent, the full and autonomous authority to “order” the “removal” and “detention” of every person the Governor or his “delegee” determines “may pose” a “significant and imminent threat to public health.”  The bill refers to these people as a “carrier” or “contact” of COVID-19.  Once some health department worker thinks a New Yorker is a carrier or contact to a carrier, that person will be seized and held without hearing, trial, due process, or bond for a period of time to be determined by the health department. 

A-416 does graciously establish that any person once detained “shall not continue to be detained once the health department determines” that person is “no longer is or will become contagious.”  What is the standard for that completely arbitrary determination by the health department you might ask?  The legislation leaves that entirely to the discretion of agent of the health department and their personal “due diligence.”  Only if and when the person detained formally “requests” to be heard will the health department be required to grant the “opportunity” to be heard…within 3 – 5 days.  To give some real due process perspective, if a New Yorker is arrested and accused of murder they are guaranteed, automatically without asking, a hearing within 24 hours.  If a New Yorker is picked up on the whim of some health department worker, they will have to wait at least 3 days to have a hearing — but only after a hearing is formally requested, from your detention cell, in a yet to be determined State designated facility. 

In short:

1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials.  New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution. 

2. A-416 arbitrarily reduces the well established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some worker in the NY Health Department which violates New York’s constitutional principle of separation of powers.

3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process related to a search and seizure of their property and their body.

These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  New Yorkers cannot allow that to happen. Everyone in New York needs to contact their Senator and Assemblyman and DEMAND they vote no on A-416.  Everyone in America needs to contact their State and demand that such legislation never be drafted.

**NOTE:  Here is a sample script created by Liberty First Legal, INC. for every New Yorker to use if they want to contact their representatives and demand they vote NO!

Dear Assemblyman (insert name)

I am writing as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416.

On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies.  This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process.

A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution. 

1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials.  New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution. 

2. This bill arbitrarily reduces the well-established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some executive bureaucrat in violation of the essential principle of separation of powers.

3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process before a search and seizure of their property and their body.

These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker, I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO.  Thank you for your time and service.

Sincerely,

Sample phone script for New York A-416

I am calling as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416. On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies.  This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process.  A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution.  These are very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO.  Thank you for your time and service.