Edwin Vieira: Gangster Government
2000-06-29 Edwin Vieira: Gangster Government
[Bob Schulz introduction] Dr. Edwin Vieira is
a graduate of Harvard College, the Harvard Graduate School of
Arts & Sciences and Harvard Law School. He is an attorney
specializing in constitutional law; he is the author of Pieces
of Eight, the Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United
States Constitution, published in 1983, and a revised version of
Pieces of Eight is scheduled for publication later this year.
Let's welcome Dr. Edwin Vieira.
(Dr. Vieira) Thank you, Bob, ladies and gentlemen. My pleasure
to be here. I'm billed, on your program, with talking about the
money issue. But I've been talking about the money issue and
writing about the money issue for so long that I'm thoroughly
bored with it. And when this book, this revised book comes out,
if you pick that up at the library, if I can somehow wangle
libraries into putting it on their shelves, and you read it,
you'll be mightily bored with the issue too.
So, I'm not going to talk about that, I'm going to talk, in
general, about some of the problems that I see from a
constitutionalist's perspective with the "16th Amendment" and
the wonderful work that Bill Benson has done, and that Larry
Becraft and others have followed up on.
Now, one of the things, though, that I would like to raise as an
issue, for your consideration, is a peculiarity that I see
between the two subject matters; one, the money issue, the
Federal Reserve, if you will, on the one hand, and the income
tax on the other hand. I've studied the money issue, case law,
statutory law, historical descriptions of what went on, from, I
don't know, the Middle 1600's in England up until now. And one
of the things you discover, or at least I have discovered, going
through all of that, is that the powers that be, very
systematically changed the laws as they went along, or they
wrote the court opinions in such a way as to rationalize,
perhaps not justify, but at least to rationalize, what they were
doing.
So you can see a kind of logical progression or degeneration in
the statutory and case law from the early days, from the
Constitution, from 1789, up until the present time. And they
really didn't hide any of this. It's there if you're willing to
look. Fascinating thing is, most people aren't willing to look.
But, it's not a deep, dark secret.
Whereas, in the area of the income tax, there seems to be, at
least to my mind, an anomaly. That is, if I were in charge,
politically, of this system, and I had a vast mass of people out
there believing that they had to pay these taxes and they had to
file these forms and keep these records and perform all of these
various functions, even if I knew that the "16th Amendment"
hadn't been ratified or that there was some other basic
constitutional flaws in what I was doing, it really wouldn't
bother me too much, to write the tax statutes and regulations
consistently with what the masses of people thought those
statutes and regulations said. Why would I care? It's all a con
game anyway, right? I'm lying left and right. I can lie in this
statute as well I lie in that statute. What difference does it
make? Why would I not write the tax code and the tax regulations
in the way everybody believes the tax code and the tax
regulations are already written?
And I leave that with you, because I think that's a fascinating
psychological problem.
The more interesting psychological problem, and I think it's a
problem also of political philosophy, that I want to talk about
today, is why we are even bothering to be here. Why Bill Benson
had to bother, trudging all over the country, to collect those,
what, 17,000, plus or minus -- probably plus, probably a low
estimate -- 17,000 certified pages of public records. It seems
to me that, if we're all not embarked on a kind of fool's
errand, that, certainly, this group has undertaken a task that,
in any kind of free and rational society, it should never have
been called upon to start, and certainly shouldn't have to
complete.
None of the business that the various speakers this morning have
laid on the table before you folks, would be necessary, if all
of those foxes in charge of the henhouse in Washington and the
state capitols, all of those years since 1913, had been acting
according to their legal duties, instead of behaving according
to their political natures. Now, I know, just as everyone else
here, that I really swoon with patriotic ardor, and swell with
party pride, when I hear the revered names of our leaders, past
and present.
Nevertheless, it seems to me, that the conclusion to which I
come, from history, at least, is that all of them, to the last
man and woman, minus one or two exceptions, haven't done their
duty, they're not doing their duty, they have no intention of
doing their duty, and no reality, no piling up of petitions, or
pleas or kowtowing or begging, will ever cause them to do their
duty, or to accomplish anything other than aiding their critics
to establish a record of their willful and persistent
derelictions of duty. Now, some of you may blanch at that, the
severity and the sweep of this indictment, for lawyers are good
at making indictments. But, I'll let you be the judges.
Now, I just should backtrack once, because I always tell some
kind of a story about lawyers, being one, for my sins.
Plane goes down, in the Caribbean. Three survivors. Dr. Kildare,
Lawyer Mouthpiece, and Father O'Flaherty. And they swim to this
little island. Get there, they're completely dog tired. And
there's nothing, just sand and rock. But, across a little
lagoon, there's another island, and it has palm trees, and,
apparently, fresh water. Well, they have to get to it. And they
see that one of the rafts from the plane has washed up on that
island. Now that ... but they're too tired to swim, so they say
"One of us has got to go and get that raft." But the water is
full of sharks. Well, Dr. Kildare, he's really the strongest of
the three, says "I'll go." The other two say, "No, Doctor, no,
you know if things come, bad comes to worse, we're going to need
you." Father O'Flaherty says "Well, it's really my
responsibility, my sons, I'll go." They say, "No, Father, if
things really come worse to worse, we may need you even more
than Dr. Kildare." So that leaves, of course, the lawyer. Nobody
can figure out a reason why he shouldn't go. So, he goes off and
plunges into the water, and all of a sudden, instead of
devouring him, the tiger sharks line up and form a bridge and he
can actually walk right across to the other side. And Father
O'Flaherty looks at Dr. Kildare and says, "It's a miracle, a
miracle." And Dr. Kildare turns back and says, "No, just
professional courtesy." (Audience laughter and applause.)
Well, let me be a little shark-like in terms of analyzing this
situation, historically. You know, with all deference to Bill,
the question of the invalidity of the "16th Amendment" wasn't
broached yesterday, it wasn't even broached in 1985, really.
Because all of the primary evidence has been a matter of public
record since 1913. 1913, until the early 1980's, well before
Bill Benson and Red Beckman ever started out on their trek, it
was there. Now, Bill published that book, The Law That Never
Was, 1985, (Bill, in background saying "April 4th") okay, April
4th, 1985, 15 years ago. The evidence that was catalogued and
reproduced in The Law That Never Was was filed and the argument
against the "16th Amendment" was presented in numerous Federal
court income tax cases, or at least they tried to present it. I
remember one of those was in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I was there
testifying on another subject, on the money issue. Bill was
there, Larry Becraft was there, and there was Judge Enslen, who
was the ringmaster in that little circus. And what was
interesting in that case, just as an aside, they were so afraid
of having the money issue, forget the "16th Amendment", they
were so afraid of having the money issue presented to the jury,
that they had to have my testimony off the record, at night, in
the court house, with no one present, other than the lawyers,
and the court clerk and the judge, and the poor witness. That
was Judge Enslen. Fine example.
Bill Benson and Larry Becraft, as I understand, sent copies of
The Law That Never Was to every member of Congress. (In the
background, Bill said "I did.") You did, okay, and that was
when, the middle 1980's? (Bill in background "'87, and their
names were embossed on the bottom of the book in gold, just like
the book is [couldn't understand Bill's last word here]") Okay,
1980, 1987. And subsequently, and even to this very day, the
charge that the "16th Amendment" is invalid has appeared in all
sorts of publications, and you can find it spread in the global
village on the Internet. People in Bangladesh know this.
Alright. And of course, very recently, this group, Bob Schulz,
presented the issue to the White House, right, with the results
that you all know. But nothing has been done, in all these
years, by all of these people in authority. And, there is the
interesting question, "Why not?".
Well, to answer that question, I think you first have to
investigate how these people have shirked their duties and
failed their country, and, if Shakespeare's ghost will forgive
me, I would ask the question, "How do I fault thee? Let me count
the ways."
First, the judiciary. Ah, the judiciary. The inferior Federal
courts, I'm not saying that to be derogatory, that's the
constitutional term, right? The inferior courts ... say that the
invalidity of the "16th Amendment" raises a "political question"
which is not justiciable, but belongs exclusively to Congress.
Well, that's rather a highly questionable, you know, or even
question-begging conclusion. As many as you probably know, the
term "political question", or even any words or phrases that
intimate that kind of a doctrine, do not appear in the
Constitution. The doctrine of political questions is another of
those rather imaginative patterns that the courts have cut from
whole cloth in order to avoid being confronted with issues that
they would rather not hear.
Now, in some very narrow context, that idea may serve a
practical purpose. But in this particular context, it makes no
sense at all. If you recall, the theory of judicial review,
which is the basis for the Supreme Court and the other courts
deciding on the constitutional questions of statutes that come
before them, that was first excogitated in the case of Marbury
v. Madison by John Marshall, long, long, ago [5 U.S. 137, 173,
176 (1803)], and it says that because of their oaths or
affirmations of office to support this Constitution, in any case
or controversy that comes before the judges, they must put the
Constitution ahead of any mere statute or other action by public
officials.
So, no matter what Congress or the President or the States may
say some provision of the Constitution means to them, the judges
must decide the matter for themselves. In fact, they have a
saying, which is attributed usually to Chief Justice Charles
Evans Hughes that encapsulates this sort of unbridled power that
they have: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Well, of course, that's nonsense! But let's take them at their
word, and see where that leads. If the judges' oaths or
affirmations require them to decide for themselves what some
provision of the Constitution means, why then do those same
oaths or affirmations not equally compel them to decide the even
more consequential matter of whether some alleged provision of
the Constitution actually exists? Alright? Existence usually
precedes meaning, one would hope. No matter what Congress or the
Secretary of State or the President or the States may say, or
not say.
Are we supposed to believe that this doctrine of judicial review
is so inconsistent in its logic, and so porous in its coverage,
that, on the one hand, the courts will not suffer Congress, the
President or the States, to make the least little mistake about
some provision or amendment of the Constitution, what those
mean, let alone to lie about it? But, on the other hand, the
courts will allow Congress, the Secretary of the State, the
President, the States, whomever, to lie or to make glaring
mistakes about whether a particular amendment actually exists?
-- is rather implausible theory.
Are we further to believe that the courts will not allow
Congress to lie or to make a glaring mistake about whether an
Amendment actually exists, but then will also suffer themselves
to be perverted as willing tools to convict, fine, or
incarcerate people, who, if the Amendment doesn't exist, are
innocent of any crime? That strikes me as even less likely.
Now, it's possible that judges with straight faces, and maybe
quiet consciences, might refuse to hear the argument that the
"16th Amendment" was not validly ratified. If Congress, the
Secretary of State, the President, and the States that
supposedly ratified the Amendment, had all affirmatively passed
on that question in light of the evidence that has now been
exposed through Bill Benson's work. But as every judge in this
country knows, neither Congress, nor the Secretary of State, nor
the President, nor any of the States that supposedly ratified
that Amendment, have, in fact, passed on the deficiencies that
Bill has cataloged. And these deficiencies quite glaringly show
that the Secretary of State and the state legislatures that
supposedly ratified the Amendment knew, or should have known,
from the very beginning, that those ratifications were highly
questionable. But they did nothing.
So, it strikes me that no judge can honestly say that this is a
matter that Congress or other political branches of the
government, national or state, have somehow put to rest. Neither
can any judge say that this is a matter that only Congress can
or should put to rest. Or at least no judge can say this, when a
defendant stands before him charged with some criminal violation
of a statute, the validity of which depends on the existence of
the Amendment. Self-evidently, if Congress, the Secretary of
State, the President, and the States, refuse to come to grips
with the issue, the obligation to decide the invalidity of the
"16th Amendment" necessarily falls back on each individual
judge, in each case that comes before him, perforce of Marbury
v. Madison. Their own Supreme Court is telling them to do this.
Now, whether the ratification of the "16th Amendment" arose out
of a fraud perpetrated by Philander Knox, at least in my view,
is not the controlling issue in this kind of analysis. Although,
obviously, a charge of fraud renders the matter that much more
serious. The Amendment would be unconstitutional even if Knox's
certification of its supposed ratification, had resulted from
his merely honest stupidity, insouciance, or blunders. Either
the Amendment was ratified in the form required by law in 1913,
or it was not. If it was not so ratified, it did not then
become, and is not now, and cannot be, part of the Constitution,
no matter how many mistakes office holders may have made in good
faith in saying the opposite.
We the People's lives, liberty, and property cannot be held
hostage to our representative's negligence. And any judicial
doctrine that holds otherwise, is itself such a [sound
interrupted for approximately 7 seconds ]. But I don't believe
an honest mistake explains why judges so readily employ their
doctrine of political questions. [sound interrupted for 13
seconds] alleged Amendment, and its invalidity would be a
political question if it dealt, not with the income tax, which
is a cornerstone of the modern administrative state, but with
some other matter that threatened the establishment's power.
Imagine, for instance, that for ... as they used to say in
Camelot, a single shining moment occurred, and We the People
actually gained control of Congress and the state Legislatures
and pushed through a new amendment. A new patriotic amendment,
that cut back on the, for instance, the judiciary's wild
misinterpretations of the First Amendment. An amendment that
allowed states and localities to ban pornographic writings,
theatrical performances, movies, lewd displays, whatever. I
don't have to specify any more. All the elements of the sexually
degenerate cutting edge of the cultural revolution that the
Establishment is waging against this country. Would the courts
interpose the doctrine of political questions to prevent the
peddlers of smut from stripping that Amendment of its validity
if they had the evidence that Bill Benson produced against the
"16th Amendment"?
Or imagine that this new Amendment allowed or even required the
states to ban abortion. Uh! God forbid! Would the courts
energize the doctrine of political questions to suction the
abortions out of the courtroom doors?
Or imagine this new Amendment prohibited the national government
from owning any wilderness areas, parks, or other lands or
facilities, other than those specified in Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17, of the Constitution, and required the government to
sell what it holds to the private sector. Would the courts snarl
at the radical environmentalists to stop badgering the judges
and instead hunt for relief from Congress?
Or imagine that this Amendment reaffirms, in utterly clear
terms, that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees and
protects the private ownership of all types of firearms suitable
for people's militia, from handguns to fully automatic rifles
and submachine guns. Would the courts unholster the doctrine of
political questions to shoot down the lawsuits of the gun
control fanatics? Would Rosie O'Donnell be told to go to
Congress, or some other place where she ought to go? [Audience
laughter and applause]
Could anyone here believe for one minute, for one second, that
in each of these situations, the Establishment's courts would
not leap into the legal fray and declare any of these supposed
Amendments invalid, notwithstanding all the arguments about
political questions that the proponents of the Amendments might
make? Well, I leave that you, that's rather self-evident.
Now, let's look at the Department of Justice, so-called. If
judges are responsible for whatever injustices are being
perpetrated under the "16th Amendment" because the courts serve
as the venues for prosecutions, certain people of the Department
of Justice, perhaps are even more culpable, because they bring
those prosecutions in the first instance. Now, doubtlessly, the
government attorneys involved in the initial cases in which was
introduced evidence from The Law That Never Was, reported all of
this back to their superiors. Then what did they, their
colleagues, and their superiors do? Well, there's a division in
the Department of Justice that decides whether or not to pursue
each and every income tax prosecution, at least that used to be
the law. In making those decisions in the cases that followed
publication of The Law That Never Was, did the responsible
officials or the prosecuting attorneys or anyone else in that
bureaucratic rabbit warren investigate the invalidity of the
"16th Amendment"? Did the Attorney General, who is ultimately
responsible for everything that transpires in the Department of
Justice, do anything?
If they did, what did they do? What did they discover? What did
they determine? If it was that the "16th Amendment" was validly
ratified, why has someone at the Department of Justice not
communicated this conclusion in eighteen point type to the
American people, so the matter could finally be closed? What
would cause the people in that department to keep such a
congenial conclusion secret? Surely not their personal
self-interests, or the self-interests of the political machinery
in which they are the cogs. On the other hand, if they did not
investigate, why not? Did they act then? Are they acting now, in
reckless disregard of what an investigation would prove? Well
now, you know most of these machinskies are attorneys. They're
members of the bar, and officers of the courts. As such, they
have certain ethical -- believe it or not -- they have certain
ethical obligations, in addition to the legal responsibilities
that their bureaucratic positions impose on them.
Now, those of you who are attorneys or might have had the
misfortune to deal with attorneys, should ponder the following
little scenario that I've drawn up, and the questions that might
be used at what we lawyers call "a continuing legal education
seminar on lawyers' ethics." And here's the scenario: Attorney
Shyster represents a major corporation that has a number of
lawsuits being threatened and prosecuted against it. During the
first of these cases that goes to trial, the CEO of Shyster's
client provides him with a document that, the CEO says, will win
the case. Well, dutifully Shyster introduces the document as
evidence. Over the opposing party's objection, Judge Goofball
accepts it. On the basis of this evidence, Shyster's client
prevails. Later, information comes to Shyster showing that the
supposed evidence is, or very well may be, in fact, false, and
perhaps even fraudulent.
Question. Does Shyster have an ethical obligation to investigate
the matter?
Question. Until that investigation is completed, has been
completed, may Shyster ethically introduce the document in other
trials, simply because Judge Goofball was possibly deceived in
the first trial by Shyster himself?
Question. What if the CEO of Shyster's client orders Shyster not
to investigate, but to cover up the whole matter, and to
continue to use the phony evidence in other trials? Should
Shyster refuse or merely raise his fee? [Audience laughter]
Question. Would your answer to the preceding question be
different if the CEO also promises to use his political
influence to see that Shyster is appointed to a Federal
judgeship?
Well, one need not be an expert in legal ethics or even a lawyer
to know how to answer these questions, especially the last one.
But the question is really, which way should they be answered?
Well now, let's take a look at Congress. Congress's
responsibility for this state of affairs is multi-fold.
Number one. Congress originally accepted Philander Knox's
certification that the "16th Amendment" had been validly
ratified, without, as far as we know, any legislative
investigation of the accuracy or good-faith of his
certification. Correct? Didn't even look at it! Well if this was
culpable negligence, at that time, is open to debate. No longer
arguable is that such uncritical acceptance today sinks to a
level far below mere negligence.
Second. Based on its original uncritical acceptance of the "16th
Amendment", since 1913 Congress has enacted numerous income tax
statutes and licensed the IRS to promulgate countless
regulations under color of which trillions of dollars of wealth
have been extracted from the American people, and who can say
how many individuals have been fined, imprisoned, or otherwise
penalized and punished for violating various code provisions or
regulations. This looting and persecution continues unabated,
not only within Congress's view, and not only to its financial
benefit, but also with its acquiescence, approval, and no less
than aid and comfort.
For point three, Congress has always enjoined the constitutional
power, and faced with the documentation that the "16th
Amendment" was not lawfully ratified, has the constitutional
duty to initiate an inquiry into the legal basis for the present
income tax statutes and regulations. It doesn't need Bill Benson
to petition it. Doesn't need this group of people to meet here.
It's always had that responsibility and that power. And not in
some vaguely theoretical way either. Because court after court,
in the last few years, has actually held, not merely suggested,
that whether the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified, is a
political question for Congress alone to decide. So the
judiciary has officially dumped this issue in the Legislature's
lap. And every American knows how punctilious and scrupulous
Congress is in following judicial decisions.
Which brings me to point four. If Congress would've determined
that officials in the Judicial and Executive branches of the
government have convicted and imprisoned innocent individuals
under color of tax statutes, notwithstanding that those
officials were on notice, and knew, or should have known, of the
invalidity of the "16th Amendment", then it seems that Congress
would be at least morally required to impeach and remove from
office each and every one of those officials, preliminary to the
imposition of more drastic punishments.
Well, Congress has done none of those things either. That brings
us to the Secretary of State. Now the present Secretary of State
... and I should backtrack one step. The law has changed. The
Secretary of State no longer certifies the ratification of
constitutional amendments. But, in this particular case, I
believe the present Secretary of State, the sitting Secretary of
State, retains responsibility because her predecessor, Philander
Knox, certified the "16th Amendment" had been validly ratified.
And if Knox's act under color of his position of Secretary was
erroneous, or worse yet, fraudulent, it would appear legally
incumbent, as well as morally compulsive, upon Knox's successor
in office, to correct the error or expose the fraud, because
that really was an error of the Department of State. Of course,
nothing's being done there now, the present Secretary of State
is more interested in bombing wogs and fuzzy wuzzys in foreign
countries than in dealing with issues of freedom of the American
people.
Well, that brings us to the President, or as they like to say,
this President [audience laughter], to distinguish him from all
the other Presidents [more laughter], for whatever reason may
strike your fancy, this President.
On entering his office, even this President swore or affirmed
that he, quote "will, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," and
it may be true that he's doing it to the best of his ability
[audience laughter and applause]. Because if Congress won't call
him a perjurer, I certainly don't want to. And among this
President's duties is the requirement that, quote, "he shall
take care that the laws be faithfully executed." No doubt
depending on what he thinks "faithfully" means [audience
laughter], because we know how he interprets that word in other
contexts [more laughter].
How can anyone fulfill these mandates who does not know, or
worse yet, does not care, what the Constitution actually
prescribes? So, now that the President does know, along with
everyone else in the global village, for which we can thank Al
Gore, right? [audience laughter]. As long as he knows that the
ratification of the "16th Amendment" may have been false or
fraudulent, his duties should be diligently to inquire into the
matter so that he could be sure of what the laws are, that he
must take care to faithfully execute. And while the
investigation proceeds, he could also order the Department of
Justice not to prosecute any more criminal income tax cases, let
them be put on hold, for heaven's sakes. And he could even
pardon those people who were convicted while the courts and
everyone else in positions of authority in the Federal apparatus
refused to address this issue. He could, but he isn't, and he
hasn't, and he won't.
Well, that brings us to the states. Glory be, the 10th
Amendment, the states. The states that claimed to Secretary of
State Knox that they had ratified the "16th Amendment" obviously
share an especially weighty responsibility for everything that
has transpired since 1913. Partly because they, perhaps more
than anyone else, are, or should be, aware of the many manifest
and arguably fatal deficiencies of their supposed ratifications.
So now that this question has been squarely presented, the
Legislatures of those states should conduct their own
investigations into the sufficiency of their ratifications. And
perhaps their courts should entertain lawsuits to test that
sufficiency. Moreover, what about those three solitary states,
the three musketeers of constitutionalism, that refused to
ratify the 16th Amendment? Connecticut, the Constitution state.
Rhode Island, where they had the first incendiary tax protest,
they burned the Gatsby, British tax schooner. And Utah. Those
states could bring an action in the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, attacking the faulty ratification of the
Amendment. And this would have the inestimable value of forcing
the "gang of nine" to take a public position, that they will
obviously never do because they will always deny writs of
certiorari in any of these tax cases that come up through the
lower courts.
So, in sum, much could be done by many doers with legal and
moral responsibility for doing something, who all have some
power to do it. But, in fact, nothing has been done by the
Judiciary, except to dodge the issue as a "political question".
And nothing has been done in any way, shape, or form, by
Congress, the Department of Justice, Secretary of the State, the
President, or the states. Now were this a matter, not of
constitutional law, which is one of my areas of interest, but of
labor law, which is another of my areas of interest, I might
draw the conclusion that I would have to identify all of these
political deadbeats as charter members of Local Number One of
the Shirkers, Snivelers, Shovel-Leaners, and Standers-By
International Union [audience laughter and applause]. Any of you
who have teen-age or near teen-age children know about that
union because I think children sign up for that at birth,
alright. Try to get them to do anything around the house.
Or, if this were a matter of criminal law, which in the fulness
of time it may yet become, the conclusion would be that as
government officials, these people knowingly, intentionally and
wilfully have enforced an arguably invalid Amendment with
reckless disregard of its invalidity and therefore should be
held criminally liable as violators of American civil rights
[audience applause]. Title 18, United States Code, section 241,
seems to have been written with them in mind. Perhaps more
interestingly, though, to me at least, is to view this spectacle
through the lense of political science, or political philosophy.
I don't think this is much a matter of legal craft as it is of
soul craft, if you know my meaning.
The failure to act on the part of all of these individuals in
high office for so many decades, and especially during the last
fifteen years, during which they have been on repeated notice of
the documentation compiled in The Law That Never Was, must have
had some reason other than mere sloth. For, according to their
own press releases, and their political propaganda, these people
are the very best and the brightest of all Americans. They are
uniquely qualified by their intellects, their experiences, their
motivations, their qualities of leadership, ad nauseam, to fill
the highest offices of the land. That's why they run for office,
for heaven's sakes! And surely, political psychology tells us
that the most plausible reason for the inactivity of such men
and women must be their own self-interest, which, no doubt, they
know better than anything else.
Now, the American people must ask themselves, "What is the
self-interest of political officials sworn to support this
Constitution, to preserve and protect the Constitution, to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed, what is the
self-interest of those individuals who would maintain this
country in subservience to an 'income tax amendment' they know,
should know, and have every good reason to know, was never
ratified, and is therefore not part of the Constitution, and not
a law, to be faithfully executed or even to be executed in any
way, shape or form?"
Clearly, it is not the self-interest of true and honest agents
of average American men and women. For in no rational sense
could such deceitful and disloyal officials, behaving in such a
lawless manner, be considered the people's representatives. Then
who or what have they been representing all of these years? And
more to the present purpose, who or what are they representing
now?
Realistic political science teaches that there are two, and only
two, kinds of government. One, is what the ancient Romans
called, a res publica, a "public thing", a government for the
people. Not necessarily a democracy, because ancient Rome was
not a democracy. And not necessarily a republic, because the
ancient Romans from time to time appointed dictators, with good
reason. And one can even imagine an aristocracy or a monarchy
that would put the public interest, the general welfare, the
common good of every citizen, ahead of all narrow special
interests. Well that's one form of government.
The other is a government of, by, and for a self-selected,
self-perpetuating, crew of elitists. This is not a res publica,
a public thing. It is La Cosa Nostra, "our thing." [audience
laughter and applause]. That is, gangster government. And such
is precisely the nature of what passes for the government today
in Washington. And in the states, and the counties, and the
cities. It's just a different "family", depending on where you
are.
This explains what is going on with the "16th Amendment" far
better than any legal mumbo jumbo such as the doctrine of
"political questions". America's gangster government does not
give a rotten fig what the law actually is. Because law is just
a camouflage, or a cover story, for the gang's looting and
oppression of the rest of society [audience applause]. America's
gangster government operates under what it's legal mouthpieces
called a "living Constitution." That is, a Constitution, the
meaning of which depends on the interests of the big shots who
happen to be living [audience laughter], and who pull the
legislative and judicial strings.
So, America's gangster government can function perfectly well
under Constitutional Amendments that were never ratified.
Because whether an amendment was ratified is far less important
than whether it can be enforced. And I remind you of the wisdom
... the man was not a Sicilian, he was a Neopolitan, but he had
tremendous wisdom in this area ... Alphonse Capone, one of the
great political philosophers in American history [audience
laughter]. He said "You can go a long way in life with a smile,
but you can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun." [audience
laughter]. It's what you can enforce.
Now, what is the point, I might even ask what is the rationality
of asking a gangster government, or particular gangsters in the
government, to investigate and pass judgment on their own
wrongdoing? Do you not already know what they will say? And
whatever they say, will you believe them? Do you believe what
they have told you about the Oklahoma City bombing? Do you
believe what they've told you about Waco? About TWA flight 800?
About Mena, Miny, and Mo? [audience laughter]. Well, that raises
another question, though. What can common Americans do about
this gangster government? After all, it is the government! And
it's much more dangerous precisely because it's composed of
gangsters.
Well, that's true. But also, this is a government around which
hangs the smell of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials,
which set the precedent for prosecution of gangster governments.
Looting a whole country for generations under color of an
unratified constitutional amendment, constitutes a crime against
the people, if anything does. That this crime is being committed
by individuals who happen to hold official positions in the
government, Nuremburg and Tokyo tell us, does not attenuate its
criminality or immunize its perpetrators. But with all due
deference to Dostoevsky, crime is one thing, and punishment is
another. And these criminals will never be punished until they
are first pulled from office by an educated, disgusted, and
incensed electorate [audience applause]. But to strip them of
their offices, they must first be tried, and that in the court
of public opinion, which is the only tribunal now sitting that
will give these charges a fair hearing.
So, in what I call "the program of the four I's," Investigate,
Inculpate, Indict, Incarcerate, [audience laughter] the first
and most important step must be investigation. The machinery of
investigation should center around a Citizen's Constitutional
Investigatory Commission, composed of legal scholars,
historians, other qualified individuals who are capable of
assessing and arriving at correct conclusions from pertinent
evidence. This Commission, however, must not seek any
governmental direction, assistance, or other involvement. Public
officials may appear before it as witnesses, and indeed many
should be summoned to testify and to submit documentary
evidence. But otherwise, no public official should be allowed to
participate in such a Commission's work, as any such connection
would raise insoluble conflicts of interest.
The Commission should be empowered to investigate at least four
issues.
First, whether the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified in
1913. That will require an in-depth analysis of all the
materials that have been collected in The Law That Never Was and
whatever else can be assembled and all of the circumstances that
led to the generation of those materials.
Second, if the Commission determines that the alleged "16th
Amendment" was not validly ratified, the Commission should then
determine whether a tax on incomes from individual's labor,
professions, wages, and salaries, is a direct tax or an excise
tax, as those terms are used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,
and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, of the Constitution. That's
because, as one of the speakers pointed out earlier today, there
is some dispute among the government, and also among
constitutional scholars, as to what kind of tax an income tax
is. And we're going to cover all the bases, or this Commission
should cover all the bases. So such an investigation will entail
an in-depth analysis of direct and indirect taxes in English and
American Colonial law in the century or so preceding the War of
Independence and ratification of the Constitution. Because we
want to know what those words meant in 1789, not what they mean
today to somebody in the Department of Justice or the Internal
Revenue Service.
Third, if a tax on individual income from labor is held to be an
excise by the Commission, then the Commission should determine
an issue that was also broached earlier this morning, whether
such a tax constitutes a badge or incidence of slavery or
involuntary servitude, and is therefore unconstitutional under
the 13th Amendment. I won't go into this in great detail, but
you figure it out. The premise of this tax is that the tax is
generated by labor, labor creates this tax. And the tax is
taken, in principle, directly from the labor. Which, of course,
to the government, has no value except in so far as it produces
the wealth that can expropriated. This is precisely the
master-slave theory of wealth generation. And I think if one
went back to the antebellum American and Colonial literature,
you would find a great deal of information on that subject which
would verify that interpretation. In any event, that particular
issue has to be settled.
And, finally, if the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified, if
a tax on incomes from individual labor is a direct tax, or if
such a tax is a badge or incident of slavery, then the
Commission should determine why officials in all branches of the
national government have enforced this tax since 1913, and in
particular, why they have done so since publication of The Law
That Never Was and all the litigation on the findings in that
book brought in public view this issue.
One important aspect of such a Commission's work, would be a
comprehensive search for documentary evidence, Federal and state
Freedom of Information Acts could be used, national archives,
state archives, Presidential libraries, compilations of papers
of public figures that are maintained in universities, and so
forth and so on, all of those need to be searched.
Another important aspect of the work must be public hearings,
hopefully to be held in various places throughout the country,
during which testimony will be taken and documentary evidence
submitted. This, not only for the Commission's immediate work,
but for the purpose of educating people in the various locales
about what's going on and what these issues are.
And eventually the Commission should publish its findings,
together with all testimony and documentary evidence suitably
printed and bound, what, forty, fifty, sixty, a hundred,
volumes, right? Reminds me of that wonderful work that was
produced in 1945-46, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, we could
almost use that title. These materials then should be presented
immediately to Congress, the Secretary of State, the President,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Legislatures of the
several states that were involved in the ratification of the
"16th Amendment". If the Commission's findings establish the tax
on individual income from labor is unconstitutional, each of
these governmental recipients should be instructed to take
appropriate action. Now, you note that the word I use is
"instructed." Not, asked, petitioned, begged, or implored. For,
faced with findings that the income tax is unconstitutional,
theirs will be the constitutional duty to act. I presume,
however, being something of a cynic, ... you know people often
call me a pessimist. And I like to ask them, you know, what's
the definition of a pessimist? A pessimist is an optimist who
knows the facts [audience laughter]. I've been in this business
a while. And it gets dirtier the deeper you dig. So, I presume,
that no matter what findings are presented to these public
officials, they will not disestablish the individual income tax
on their own, anymore than they would disestablish the Federal
Reserve system, simply because someone such as myself proves
that the constitutional dollar is a silver coin, not a piece of
paper [audience applause]. Or any more than they will give up
their fantastic dreams for a New World Order simply because the
Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as a
nation among nations, not as a satrapy of some global empire
[audience applause].
Rather, I anticipate that they will do everything within their
power to obstruct, obfuscate, and delay, if not derail entirely,
the Commission's investigation, and then to criticize, belittle,
and ridicule the Commission's findings. Because, let's face the
facts, the income tax is one of the major props of the power
structure. Enough said! At that point, though, finally armed
with the whole truth on one side, and face to face with the
political classes' intransigence on the other, the American
people will be forced to decide whether they are sheep or men,
whether they can mount a grass-roots political movement to throw
these elitists out of office once and for all and reassert
self-government in this country, or accept the other
alternative.
It will be very interesting to see what happens. Thank you,
ladies and gentlemen [audience applause]. |
