Comments on: Fairfax to defy the Department of Education http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/ Protect yourself from government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:25:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matt http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13423 Matt Sat, 03 Feb 2007 02:42:29 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13423 actually, the 16th amendment says The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. From ANY source. Including people. actually, the 16th amendment says

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

From ANY source. Including people.

]]> By: Q http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13422 Q Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:27:49 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13422 good work nobody, I wasn't sure if anyone else knew about that. good work nobody, I wasn’t sure if anyone else knew about that.

]]> By: nobody http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13421 nobody Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:58:18 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13421 Here we go again. Trying to treat the symptoms while the patient dies of the disease. The constitution forbids direct taxation of the people by the federal government for a great many reasons. This is one of the reasons. The supreme court ruled in the early twentieth century that "people" were protected from direct taxation by the federal government and that income tax could therefor only apply to non entities such as corporations. Income tax was therefor applied as a temporary "voluntary" donation to pay the national debt. It still is. You are however required by law to self asses your potential liability. The IRS Code is not law and to settle with the IRS you must wave your rights to judicial proceedings by agreeing to Tax Court arbitration. Tax Court is not a part of the Judiciary. The law does not apply there, but IRS Code only. If you do not agree to wave your rights, the IRS can prosecute you in Judicial proceedings. They can convict you of failing to legally self asses your potential liability. They seldom win against a jury of your peers. This does not stop them from collateral damage by confiscating your property through coercion or other tactics. They effectively make it too much trouble to assert your rights by ruining you financially. "Here is the disease". Here we go again. Trying to treat the symptoms while the patient dies of the disease. The constitution forbids direct taxation of the people by the federal government for a great many reasons. This is one of the reasons. The supreme court ruled in the early twentieth century that “people” were protected from direct taxation by the federal government and that income tax could therefor only apply to non entities such as corporations. Income tax was therefor applied as a temporary “voluntary” donation to pay the national debt. It still is. You are however required by law to self asses your potential liability. The IRS Code is not law and to settle with the IRS you must wave your rights to judicial proceedings by agreeing to Tax Court arbitration. Tax Court is not a part of the Judiciary. The law does not apply there, but IRS Code only. If you do not agree to wave your rights, the IRS can prosecute you in Judicial proceedings. They can convict you of failing to legally self asses your potential liability. They seldom win against a jury of your peers. This does not stop them from collateral damage by confiscating your property through coercion or other tactics. They effectively make it too much trouble to assert your rights by ruining you financially. “Here is the disease”.

]]> By: Brian http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13419 Brian Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:30:56 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13419 Dana; I have long wondered why some academic of the libertarian ilk never researched the outcome and consequences of local schools refusing to take federal funds. I would really like to see the information. My opinion is that local schools would have significantly better results if they refused federal aid due in part because they would be able to allocate local and state funds to the students rather than the bureaucracy. Dana;

I have long wondered why some academic of the libertarian ilk never researched the outcome and consequences of local schools refusing to take federal funds. I would really like to see the information. My opinion is that local schools would have significantly better results if they refused federal aid due in part because they would be able to allocate local and state funds to the students rather than the bureaucracy.

]]> By: Dana http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13420 Dana Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:22:15 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/29/fairfax-to-defy-the-department-of-education/#comment-13420 It would be interesting information, but how common is it for anyone to refuse federal funding for anything? Let alone public schools? I know of one case, but it is perhaps only tangential and involves a university. I'll look into it more and perhaps post something. I believe they'd be better off, as well. But for better or for worse, the affairs of the local school district are not the business of the central government. It would be interesting information, but how common is it for anyone to refuse federal funding for anything? Let alone public schools?

I know of one case, but it is perhaps only tangential and involves a university. I’ll look into it more and perhaps post something.

I believe they’d be better off, as well. But for better or for worse, the affairs of the local school district are not the business of the central government.

]]>