Adventures Success Stories?

[Micah68]

Marc Stevens Wrote:How about responding to my earlier posts when I responded to your insults about us being armchair voyeurs?

How about it?

You responded to my "insults" with what I would call "insults."

I could respond, but what would be the point?

Marc Stevens Wrote:Since you're back, how about an honest look at the merits of the argument without regard to how the courts decided with Edwards?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Asking me if I'm willing to take an "honest look" at something is rhetorically dishonest (or disingenuous), because it suggests that I haven't been honest in the past. I therefore am in a no-win situation. I can't agree to take an "honest look" now because that would amount to an admission that I wasn't honest in the past. And I can't refuse to take an "honest look" now because that would be an admission that I'm not being honest now.

So, you're being a manipulative jerk (to put it politely), no matter how you look at it.

Marc Stevens Wrote:Look at the case and controversy clause and for now, ignore how the courts ruled. Make a decision on the merits based on what you read in the constitution, then let's compare that to what the courts said. Can you do that?

Sure. Can you?

Let's look at what the Constitution and the statutes of the United States say.

1. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to impose taxes. See Article I, section 8, and the 16th Amendment.

2. The Constitution also says that the judicial power of the United States, which is vested in the courts of the United States, is the power to decide "cases" arising "under the Laws of the United States" and "to which the United States shall be a Party...." See Article III, section 2.

3. Congress has imposed a tax on incomes. See Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. section 1 et seq.

4. Congress has also stated that, in order to enforce the tax on incomes, the commissioner of internal revenue has the power to summon people to produce books and records of their incomes and "If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, or other data, the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, or other data." 26 U.S.C. §7402(b).

5. So if a person that is summoned refuses to appear, there is a "case or controversy." The government wants the person to appear and produce records relating to taxes, the person doesn't want to produce the records, and the tax revenues of the government hang in the balance.

6. Just to put icing on the cake, 28 U.S.C. §1345 declares that federal district courts have jurisdiction of "all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress."

It really can't be much clearer than that. The federal government thinks it is owed tax monies, the (alleged) taxpayer disputes the debt, the government seeks records, the (alleged) taxpayer refuses to provide the records, and so there is a "case" that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States can be decided by the courts of the United States.

If you want to refute that, you shouldn't quote federal judges because you have declared that "I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges...." So you're pretty much limited to the words of the Constitution and federal statutes.