Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!hao!noao!mcdsun!rover!mph
From: mph@rover.UUCP (Mark Huth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL MICRO USERS!!! FCC INFORMATION TAX AHEAD!!
Message-ID: <400@rover.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jun-87 19:36:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: rover.400
Posted: Thu Jun 25 19:36:47 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jun-87 11:36:16 EDT
References: <2315@hoptoad.uucp> <2288@husc6.UUCP> <3021@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: mph@rover.UUCP (Mark Huth)
Distribution: world
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 53
Keywords: taxation, free speech, service providers
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:5147 comp.sys.mac:4333 comp.sys.atari.st:4190 comp.sys.amiga:6072

I know people who have refused to pay the excise tax on their telephone bills.
The phone company does not disconnect their phones, but does turn them over
to the appropriate Treasury types, who then proceed to make life miserable
for the individual claiming First Amendment protections.  After all, that's
their job.  Do not engage in this activity unless you really want a war.
Many people I know have been fighting for years, losing everything in the
battle.  Some feel that it is worth it.  Fortunately for us, some similar
type crazies dedicated their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors
to a similar cause about 211 years ago.  Of course, they were patriots, while
current day defenders of liberty are just crazy (right, left, pick a direction)
wing loonies who desire to destroy our fine current situation of perpetual debt
and impending slavery.

The payment for transportation of information is not necessarily a tax, and
even if it was a tax, would not be a violation of the First Amendment, as your
rights to free speech are not being infringed.  You may speak freely, publish
(at your own expense), etc., but as soon as you use regulated services, your
freedom meets a conflicting interest.  This does not mean that you shouldn't
let the FCC and Congress know how you feel about the issue, just that the
enterprise in question is not off limits to the tax and spend crowd.

As for what is frivolous and what is not, consider that the Supreme Court
has repeadedly failed to hear arguments on our Constitutional monetary
provisions.  They do so, not out of lack of opportunity, but because the
current economic system is founded upon an un-Constitutional power granted
to the Federal Reserve.  Article One, Section 8 gave the power to COIN
MONEY to Congress, but withheld the power to print money (emit bills of
credit).  The power to emit bills of credit was originally part of the
draft of the Constitution, but in the debate was removed - see Madison's
Journal and other records of the Constitutional debates.  Moreover, Article
One, Section 10 forbade the states from coining money, emitting bills of
credit, or making anything other than gold or silver coin a tender in payment
of debt.  Again, the power to emit bills of credit was debated in the
convention, originally proposing that the power could only be execised with
the consent of the US Congress, but amended (during the debate in convention) 
to be an absolute prohibition with the
stated intention of "crushing paper money".  Such facts are a matter of record,
but the courts consider them frivolous - read inconvenient - at this point in
time.  Many Americans have been conditioned to believe that their courts work
well, and that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says.  This 
is not a conclusion drawn from the Constitution, but rather by John Marshall, an
early Chief Justice, who, BTW was fond of the Alien and Sedition Laws.
Rather, "He who has the Gold, makes the rules," or more
correctly, he who has the gold, has the power to print money (usurped) to buy
the politicians and judges who make the rules.  

Admittedly, some arguments are frivolous, many others are incorrect, but many
arguments labeled frivolous by the government have not been discredited, but
rather the courts have simply chosen to ignore them.  If one does not believe
another, or refuses to listen to another, does not mean that one has
discredited another.  Arguments should be judged on their own merits, rather
than by the opinions of others, or of the press (or even by whether I can spell
or not).