Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Larken - Day Three Conference Call (2 of 3) (James Babb, Ken Evans, Mike Badnarik, Quince Eddens, David Jahn)

5 Old Comments:

Excellent discussion and coverage, gang. We really appreciate out here in blogland.

One Comment... The cases where the 16th amendment is discussed as NOT having expanded the taxing powers of congress are Brushaber and Stanton. These were acknowledged by the Treasury Department in Treasury decision 2303.

Keep up the good work.

By Blogger David, at 8/11/2005 7:45 AM  

Some detail:

http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/16th.html

By Blogger Dale Eastman, at 8/11/2005 5:38 PM  

Isn't it interesting that in all of that, the question of what can fall under an excise tax is avoided...

Thanks...

By Blogger David, at 8/11/2005 6:42 PM  

...nor did it address the Constitutional definition of income...

...something that plays into the prosecution of this trial...

(hint: there would be no Constitutionally excluded income without a Constitutional determination of what constituted "income"...)

By Blogger David, at 8/11/2005 6:50 PM  

You are correct David. Why re-invent the wheel?
David Champion does an excellent job covering the rest of the story.
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/11/2005 11:22 PM