Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) Newsgroups: net.taxes Subject: 5th Amendment protection and Tax Rebels Message-ID: <570@mmm.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Feb-86 10:51:02 EST Article-I.D.: mmm.570 Posted: Thu Feb 27 10:51:02 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 03:31:09 EST Distribution: net Organization: none Lines: 106 A while ago, someone posted an article bemoaning the big, bad IRS and making claims that income taxation is unconstitutional. I posted a reply including: >>> I'm always amused by people who try to show how income tax is >>>unconstitutional. 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination? So then Bob Alpert says: >>I personally do not find the thought that the American people have >>been shafted for the last 70+ years amusing at all. By the way, >>the 5th Amendment says nothing about "self-incrimination." Why >>is it that I get the feeling most people have not set their eyes >>on the Constitution since falling asleep in some Social Studies >>class long ago... Well, the first thing I thought was, "Maybe this Alpert guy knows his stuff better than I do. He certainly seems to consider himself to be better educated and more aware than the rest of us, so maybe he's right and I'm wrong. Maybe my knowledge of the Bill of Rights has been superceded by Hollywood depictions in gangster movies. I don't think so, but it *is* possible, so I'll give this guy a chance to prove his superiority.": > > Well, not having a copy of the constitution handy, I would greatly >appreciate it if you would post the text to the 5th amendment (sounds like >you have it memorized, or at least re-read it regularly). You're right - I >haven't set eyes on it since Social Studies class a long time ago. I wasn't >aware that it was a rapidly changing field where we had to keep up with >the latest textual changes. I may be mistaken, but I thought it said that >A person could not be compelled to testify against himself. Please post >the text and your explanation of what it means. > Mr. Alpert then goes on to imply his superior knowledge further: >>The Constitution and Declaration of Independence should be required >>reading for all -- it's very interesting to contrast what the role >>of the Federal Government and its powers were intended to be with what >>it has become. I went and looked it up, but didn't post anything because I wanted to give Mr. Alpert the opportunity to justify his words with either a good explanation of what he meant, or an apology. Apparantly neither is forthcoming, so I hereby post the 5th amendment: (thanks to the netter who mailed it to me, saving my typing fingers) ************************************************************************ Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ** nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a ** witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. ************************************************************************ Well, Bob, there's the amendment - any explanation of how it doesn't talk about self-incrimination? Any apologies? And while you're at it, I also asked: > > > Just out of curiosity, how do you propose that the government >finance its operation? Seriously - I'm not baiting you, I would truly >like for my thoughts to be provoked. I agree with you that there are >aspects that are horrendous, but I haven't heard any reasonable >alternatives yet. > Any reply? It has been my experience that the people who rant'n'rave against income taxes and the IRS usually don't know what they're talking about. They never have any viable alternatives to offer. I suspect that they just get sore over having to pay their money to support commie-pinko welfare when everybody knows we'd all be better off by just setting all the minorities adrift on ice floes. I agree that there are abuses and excesses involved in the IRS and tax collection, as there are in ANY large-scale operation. But the people who seize upon these isolated incidents and blow them way out of proportion have usually turned out to be neo-Nazi types like the Posse Comitatus, and I'm sorry, but I just *can't* take those people's arguments seriously. (I'm not accusing you, Mr. Alpert, because I don't know you and have not noticed any other postings from you that would indicate anything one way or another about your character. The thing that irritated me about your posting was the air of superiority about your posting, especially when you were wrong. Any comments?) -- --MKR There is none so blind as he who cannot see.