Below is my column in the Washington Post (Sunday) on our recent victory in the Sister Wives case. The column looks at the most significant aspect of the case — the rejection of morality codes that once controlled across the country in prohibiting everything from homosexuality to adultery to fornication. These morality laws were upheld in the decision in Reynolds in 1876 in a polygamy case out of Utah. The Brown decision returned us to the same question involving the same issue in the same state. Some 136 years later however the answer from this federal court was very different. We are a different country today and, despite what one hears from politicians like Rick Santorum, I believe that we are a better country today.
There does seem to be confusion about the ruling with some saying that polygamy is still not legal after the opinion. That is simply wrong. Polygamy is not the same a bigamy. One is the crime defined under cohabitation statutes of living as a plural family or with a person married to another person. The other is the crime of having two or more marriage licenses. The latter has nothing to do with the structure of your family and has almost exclusively involved people who hold themselves out (falsely) as monogamous. We always argued that the state could prosecute people who obtained more than one marriage license. Bigamy has not been an offense committed by polygamists who traditionally have one official marriage license and multiple spiritual licenses. Indeed, the law targeted polygamy with the cohabitation provision precisely because there is a difference between the two. The state fought for years to preserve this law because it reached beyond simple bigamy. Before this opinion, it was a crime for polygamists to live, as do the Browns, in a plural family. After the opinion, it is legal. This is precisely what occurred in Lawrence v. Texas where homosexual unions were a crime but then became legal when the Texas law was struck down. This decision legalizes tens of thousands of polygamous families who will no longer been viewed as criminal enterprises. They will be allowed to be open plural families. They are now legal relationships. Legality of polygamy is entirely different from recognition of plural marriages just as the legality of homosexual relations is different from the recognition of same-sex marriage.
There is also a lack of knowledge about the existence of such laws outside of Utah. This law does exist outside of Utah. Indeed, the very same language is found in the Canadian cohabitation law. I was called as a legal expert in the recent challenge to that law. However, the Canadian Supreme Court in British Columbia upheld the law. Putting these distinctions aside, the thrust of this article is how this decision is part of a larger trend toward the repeal or the striking down of morality codes, including the rejection of a cohabitation law in Virginia this year.
——————————————-
The decision this month by a federal court striking down the criminalization of polygamy in Utah was met with a mix of rejoicing and rage. What was an emancipating decision for thousands of plural families was denounced as the final descent into a moral abyss by others.
Former senator Rick Santorum was among the social conservatives trying to claim the moral high ground. He tweeted on Sunday: “Some times I hate it when what I predict comes true” — referring to his 2003 claim that legalizing “consensual sex within your home” would lead to the legalization of polygamy and “undermine the fabric of our society.” (On Wednesday, with no apparent sense of self-contradiction, he expressed outrage over the removal of a Nativity scene at a South Carolina military base, tweeting: “Our Constitution protects free exercise of religion. No govt entity/official has the right to limit that.”)It’s true that the Utah ruling is one of the latest examples of a national trend away from laws that impose a moral code. There is a difference, however, between the demise of morality laws and the demise of morality. This distinction appears to escape social conservatives nostalgic for a time when the government dictated whom you could live with or sleep with. But the rejection of moral codes is no more a rejection of morality than the rejection of speech codes is a rejection of free speech. Our morality laws are falling, and we are a better nation for it.
In the Utah case, I was the lead counsel for the Browns, the polygamous family featured in the TLC reality program “Sister Wives.” They are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, and they have one marriage license and three “spiritual” marriages among them. After the first episode of “Sister Wives” aired, state prosecutors threatened to bring charges under a Utah law that made it a crime when a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” The Browns were under investigation for two years and were publicly called felons before they took prosecutors to court in a challenge to the constitutionality of the law.
The case was never about the recognition of multiple marriages or the acceptance of the religious values underlying this plural family. It was about the right of consenting adults to make decisions for themselves and their families. Judge Clark Waddoups, a conservative George W. Bush appointee,ruled that the criminalization of cohabitation clearly violated the due process clause and the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution.
In doing so, he departed from the prevailing precedent: the Supreme Court’s opinion inReynolds v. United States , which upheld a ban on polygamy in 1879. Waddoups wrote that courts today are “less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups, especially when blatant racism . . . religious prejudice, or some other constitutionally suspect motivation, can be discovered behind such legislation.”
Indeed, in Reynolds, religious and racial prejudice were vividly on display. The court unleashed a tirade of indignation and condemnation, stating, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Just a few years later, the Supreme Court also upheld the criminalization of mixed-race relations in Pace v. Alabama .
The idea that polygamy was a “barbarous practice” and contrary to democratic principles drove the demand in the late 1880s and ’90s that Utah outlaw it as a condition of statehood. And in Mormon Church v. United States (1890), the Supreme Court labeled polygamy as “abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.”
The stigma attached to polygamy continued to distort legal analysis into this century. As recently as 2006, Utah Justice Ronald Nehring began his opinion in a ruling upholding the criminalization of polygamy by lamenting, “No matter how widely known the natural wonders of Utah may become, no matter the extent that our citizens earn acclaim for their achievements, in the public mind Utah will forever be shackled to the practice of polygamy.” Nehring frankly admitted that this hostility “has been present in my consciousness, and I suspect has been a brooding presence . . . in the minds of my colleagues, from the moment we opened the parties’ briefs.” Rather than overcome that prejudice, Nehring not only yielded to it but warned any Utah judge of the peril of being the first to recognize the rights of polygamists: “I have not been alone in speculating what the consequences might be were the highest court in the State of Utah the first in the nation to proclaim that polygamy enjoys constitutional protection.”
Well, it wasn’t. A federal judge in Utah assumed that burden. Gov. Gary Herbert objected to the court making “decisions on social issues.” (He has not yet announced an appeal.) Waddoups, however, was not dictating a decision on a social issue but rather saying that governments could not impose a single version of morality. He limited prosecution under Utah’s anti-polygamy law to cases of bigamy, where someone acquires more than one marriage license — which is an offense more common to monogamous couples, who care about state recognition, than polygamists, who care about spiritual recognition.
Across the country, the era of morality codes is coming to an inglorious end. This year, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act barring the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. And this week, the New Mexico Supreme Court and another federal judge in Utah struck down the ban on same-sex marriage in those states — bringing the number to 18 states (plus the District of Columbia) where same-sex couples can marry. Meanwhile, Virginia recently repealed its 1877 cohabitation law and Colorado replealed a criminal adultery law from the 1850s — both relics of a time when states used their criminal codes to force citizens to comply with the religious values of their neighbors.
Most states have wisely turned away from absurd laws criminalizing masturbation and fornication. Obscenity laws have also been curtailed by the Supreme Court in deference to the First Amendment.
Still rightly on the books are laws against bestiality, which involves an obvious lack of consent as well as manifest harm. Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.
Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories.
Critics often ignore these other plural relationships (and even polygynists like the Browns) in favor of a stereotype of “compound polygamists,” living in remote walled communities where women appear captive and molestation flourishes. It is Warren Jeffs, not Kody Brown, whom critics want to invoke in debating decriminalization — a sinister figure in a secluded compound where women wear prairie outfits and hairdos from the 19th century.
Obviously, there will always be abusers like Jeffs among polygamists — just as there are abusers among monogamists. However, it is no more persuasive to criminalize all plural relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.
One of the great ironies about the focus on compound polygamists is the circular logic of criminalization. The government first declared polygamists felons and then pointed to their hiding as evidence of their guilt. But decriminalization will allow these families to be plural, open and law-abiding as they reintegrate into society.
In truth, 19th-century Americans were no more moral than we are today. It simply appeared that way with the imposition of official morals, including (as Santorum recalls so fondly) being told whom we could love in our own homes. It is not a single moral voice that is heard today but a chorus of voices. Each speaks to its own values but joins around a common article of faith: the belief that morality is better left to parents than to politicians.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and lead counsel in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case.
Washington Post (Sunday) December 22, 2013
I guess it is a good indicator of the moral character of a group of people on a blog that calls it a “victory” when there is a rejection of morality. :/
Thanks for illustrating that you don’t understand the natural world, systems theory, information theory or the mathematics underlying them either, Bron. Binary thinking? Is the intellectual equivalent of training wheels. Or blinders. Which is more appropriate for you.
Gene H wrote” “I guess it’s a good indicator of the ethical character of a person or group of people when they think “defeat” is not being able to force their subjective moral choices upon others.”
He also wrote “Thanks for illustrating that you don’t understand the natural world, systems theory, information theory or the mathematics underlying them either, Bron. Binary thinking? Is the intellectual equivalent of training wheels. Or blinders. Which is more appropriate for you.”
He rightfully criticizes one person for trying to push their morals on others and ironically criticizes the other when they try to call out the same thing against him.
That is called hypocrisy Gene H. You are differently a fascist and I would not be at all surprised if you are a web troll.
I get almost the same worded rebuttals from other people on other prominent websites, as if they are all using the same ones. You are probably using some data base to quickly get these rebuttals as they are some of the same memes used by the main stream media. Even similar criticism are used but surely the same techniques such as logical fallacies, demeaning the messenger, switching topics when cornered and what I call piling on; when a group of trolls work together to make short numerous nonsensical comments to drive the desired comment down the page, so the readers will be discouraged from reading it, having to go through numerous comments. Three or four webtrolls working together can drive down a comment by piling on with 3 or 4 quick posts each, making up to 16 posts on a thread. The reader has to read through 16 nonsensical posts before getting to the targeted comment.
Everyone knows who his fellow fascist comrades are because they all use the same techniques. They also hide who they are and very seldom talk about themselves and they will never ever answer the difficult questions.
Bron and my fellow friends, I believe Jonathan Turley’s website has be in fact compromised and infiltrated by webtrolls that will use the above techniques to break up legitimate discussions on trying to eliminate the fascism that has plagued our nation and world. To foster in their new world order, they believe the end justifies the means and I for one will not stand back and just let it continue to happen. The internet reformation is making a difference as more and more people are learning of the truths about the fascist social policies forced upon our Citizens. These people are interested in one thing, sticking as much of your money into their pockets and will do whatever is necessary to continue these policies.
Despite Jonathan’s hard work, which I admire greatly, in my opinion his site has been rendered a waste of time and effort and therefore I’m bowing out as a commenter. The fascist will see this as a defeat, but is it not. I will be else where spreading the benefits of liberty and justice and challenges the fascists on the contraindications of their various social policies and usurpation of individual rights forced on the majority. Good luck.
The State is a soulless machine. It can never be weaned from the violence to which it owes its existence – Mahatma Gandhi
Thank you all for all the great support and good luck.
Skip wrote: “That is called hypocrisy Gene H. You are differently a fascist and I would not be at all surprised if you are a web troll. I get almost the same worded rebuttals from other people on other prominent websites, as if they are all using the same ones. You are probably using some data base to quickly get these rebuttals as they are some of the same memes used by the main stream media.”
Skip, IMO, you are barking up the wrong tree with this analysis. I understand your frustration with those who do not apply logic to the topic at hand, and instead they focus upon personal attacks in order to feel titillated at hurting another human being. Nevertheless, to surmise conspiracy like you do here is grossly misplaced logic. It is wild speculation and quite frankly wrong, IMO. There are other explanations for their similar language and prejudicial way of thinking.
Take a break and reconsider your contribution here. Make a logical decision, not an emotional one. Also find a proofreader to edit your writing and pay attention to his corrections so you can learn the rules of English grammar yourself. The plethora of grammar mistakes you make causes them to disrespect you. It causes them to perceive you to be uneducated, not well read, and out of their league. The elitists can be quite dismissive of others based upon such evidence. It leads them to feel quite justified to attack you personally and to be dismissive of anything you might try to say. From their perspective, because of your poor knowledge of English grammar, you are like an 8th grader trying to be a graduate student, and they just don’t see how that can work. I personally believe you have a good mind and have something to contribute here. I would hope you reconsider and stick around. Ultimately, the constant challenge will make you a better person and better able to know what you believe and why.
Gene H:
Binary thinking is right or wrong, yes or no. Nature works like that, a horse is not dead and alive it is one or the other and not at that the same time.
A tree in the forest leaning against another tree and having no leaves and no bark is dead it isnt sort of alive because it is leaning against another tree.
Complexity is for stupid people and university professors in the political and social sciences. The stupid so they sound smarter than they are and university professors so they can bamboozle the stupid into implementing their half baked schemes.
As for keeping up, you flatter yourself. There is that self bamboozling again.
Bron,
No. I make it accurate. Your inability to understand notwithstanding.
Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain usually at the behest of (and for payment from) another. Corruption is a crime committed by two or more parties for mutual benefit.
I know.
It’s terribly complicated and complex, especially for someone with the crippling analytical deficits created by binary thinking, the choice of Objectivism, a compromised amygdala and a stunted anterior cingulate cortex.
Do try to keep up.
DavidM:
Then how do you account for men like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, George Washington Carver, Guy Bluford, Ben Carson and other brillian black Americans? Any one of which is most likely as smart or smarter than Dr. Watson. Which sort of ruins his hypothesis and yours.
And how do you account for the large number of stupid white people who live in trailer parks, have sex with numerous partners, are addicted to drugs and alcohol, have to have their hands held at work, dont save for the future and a host of other things in which stupid people engage?
Bron wrote: “Then how do you account for men like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, George Washington Carver, Guy Bluford, Ben Carson and other brillian black Americans? Any one of which is most likely as smart or smarter than Dr. Watson. Which sort of ruins his hypothesis and yours.”
It is not a “hypothesis” of mine. I’m simply relaying what the data shows. I am talking facts, not hypothesis. There is overlap in the data. There are some black people who are smarter than white people. Nevertheless, there is a statistically significant difference between the races as a whole.
Think about analyzing the height of people based upon gender. Statistically, males are taller than females, but you can find some women who are taller than some males. There is overlap, but statistically speaking, genetic differences between males and females cause hormonal differences that lead to different physical characteristics of males and females.
Liberals have invented an entire ideology that there is no such thing as race, that race is a cultural construct, but such is not based in science. It is based in their desire to have everyone equal. I believe we should embrace diversity, but they demand equality despite reality and scientific evidence.
Consider, for example, the mentally retarded, who are clearly intellectually inferior. My approach is to value them based upon humanity and ways that he might excel over the intelligent person. Their approach is to ignore the intellectual inequality, even get upset if someone were to point it out, and then to argue that we are all equal. They are fine to express such views, but when they claim that they do it based upon science based logic, my feathers get a bit ruffled at that false claim.
Gene H:
Money corrupts some people. The rich are entitled to free speech, if they can afford a television spot well good for them. You have a right to gather 100,000 citizens and ask for $50 each to support a cause you value.
Free speech is free speech and corporations are made up of individuals and the rich are individuals.
If the politicians didnt have the money to grant favors, people would not be lining up to smooze politicians for handouts. Get rid of the money which the federal government gives to entities and you end the corruption.
If the federal government had no favors to grant, no one would pay any attention to them. The ability to grant those favors comes from our tax money.
It is pretty simple but you want to make it complex. Most likely so you can bamboozle yourself. I see you do it here on a regular basis.
this article seems to be more important than whether or not a guy can entertain multiple women.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2013/12/23/utah-made-it-easier-for-cops-to-seize-innocent-peoples-property-and-not-a-single-lawmaker-voted-against-it/
Utah made it easier for the authorities to seize citizen’s properties and keep them.
A offer a couple of links from the science perspective of racial intelligence differences:
First, from the man who helped crack the DNA code himself, James Watson of the Watson & Crick fame:
James D. Watson:
“All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.”
“One of the world’s most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that “equal powers of reason” were shared across racial groups was a delusion. James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.”
“The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when “testing” suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.”
“Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
From J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It”:
“Contrary to many hopes and some claims, the narrowing of the gap in social conditions between Blacks and Whites has not led to any change in the magnitude of the Black-White IQ difference in over 100 years. Massive society-wide interventions such as ending segregation, the subsequent nationwide program of school busing to achieve racial balance, and the Head Start programs have failed to reduce this difference. Head Start programs did produce modest gains in school retention and graduation rates among Whites—but not Blacks [193]. Other large scale, often well-publicized, countywide amelioration projects have not reduced the Black-White achievement gap (despite desirably low student-teacher ratios and computers in every classroom) [8]. Adjusting for socioeconomic status, which itself contains much heritable variance, only reduces the Black-White IQ difference by about one-third [8].”
…
“There is no value in denying reality. While improving opportunities and removing arbitrary barriers is a worthy ethical goal, we must realize that equal opportunity will result in equitable, though unequal outcomes.”
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
Skip says: An entire society in 1776 disagrees with your moronic thinking.
They are all dead. They were born into a different society, educated in a different society, told stories and inculcated with belief systems that were patently false. They grew up with slavery a fact of life, the subjugation of women and other minorities a fact of life; even many of the prominent politicians and revolutionary leaders in 1776 that believed slavery was wrong were still racists that believed blacks and other races were inherently inferior to, less intelligent than, and less moral than whites.
Does that concept escape you? They were wrong. How do I know they were wrong? Because logic tells me so, science based on logic tells me so. And that is also how I know when they were correct, or nearly correct.
Not because I have any reverence for famous names, as you apparently do, but because I agree with good reasoning, and I disagree with bad reasoning or raw assertion when I can see it is false.
Tony C wrote: “…even many of the prominent politicians and revolutionary leaders in 1776 that believed slavery was wrong were still racists that believed blacks and other races were inherently inferior to, less intelligent than, and less moral than whites.”
Wait a minute. You claim that they were wrong?
Tony C wrote: “Does that concept escape you? They were wrong. How do I know they were wrong? Because logic tells me so, science based on logic tells me so. And that is also how I know when they were correct, or nearly correct.”
Science based logic is clearly NOT on your side in regards to this. Have you not read Darwin’s Descent of Man? Have you not read the facts that blacks are disproportionately represented in the prison population? Have you not read the facts about blacks having a much higher number of children born out of wedlock? Have you not read how blacks have disproportionately higher number of STD’s? Blacks represent just 14 percent of the U.S. population, yet account for one-third of all reported chlamydia cases, almost half of all syphilis cases, and two-thirds of all reported gonorrhea cases.
You can hypothesize all kinds of excuses for the racial skew in the data, but facts are facts and you cannot claim that science based logic proves your concept that our founding fathers were wrong on this point. The data still agrees with their perspective. You simply are not in agreement with them because of your own cultural prejudice. Scientific facts don’t seem to matter to you.
Tony C. Your wrote: “Your definition is too narrow and fails to describe the right to free speech, the right to be charged and have a trial, your right to practice your religion, your right to vote, your right to association, to date and marry as you please, and many other such rights.
If I have the right to do as I see fit as long as I do not take away the rights of others. I want to call you a name, because that obviously includes all the above.
Even if you charge me with a crime, I have a right to defend. That one has only been around since the 1400 century.
OK, so let’s keep going with this. Tell me what other Rights were our founders were referring to in the 9th Amendment. You’ve name the ones a 5th grader understands.
Skipples,
Yeah, that whole non-ratification argument worked out real well for Benson in court when he was trying to sell his “Reliance Defense Package” to people as a method of tax avoidance, didn’t it? The Court of Appeals said “Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent.” United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2009). Then he was denied cert.
Oops.
Yep.
That’s some kind of legal scholarship you’re relying on there, Skipples.
The kind that will land you in jail.
Davidm2575 – read the book – the facts are all there – if you want to side with the corruption that is going on – feel free to remain ignorant, as it is bliss.
Let’s tax the rich – that will make all the ills of our society go away. Morons.
Skip wrote: “…read the book – the facts are all there – if you want to side with the corruption that is going on – feel free to remain ignorant, as it is bliss.”
I’m not to eager to spend $80 for a book that has been ruled fraudulent activity by our courts and has landed Mr. Benson and many of his followers in prison. Have you read the book?
Skip says: I didn’t decide the definition of what an inalienable right is.
Right, you said I could decide my own inalienable Rights and you would support them. I called bullshit. Now you say I can’t decide for myself. So my call was correct.
Now you say you don’t get to decide what inalienable Rights are, we have to obey a bunch of dead people. I call bullshit again. Those dead people thought it was just fine to treat people like property; at least the majority of them did, and couldn’t form a government that did not permit slavery. Those dead people thought women were too weak-minded to vote, and that non-property owners were not responsible enough to vote.
All of those beliefs of the founders were just bullshit. Being a founder of this country does not make their beliefs about anything either correct or sacrosanct. That includes anything they, or any dead philosopher, may have believed about inalienable rights, property, the economy, or anything else.
We do not get to appeal to the authority of the famous or aged. inalienable Rights are decided by living people, not dead people. Now the fact that I agree with the founders on many such issues is not because of their name, position, deeds, or fame. I agree with the founders because there is logic to support their position, logic I believe in and would bet my life upon.
Skip says: Doesn’t a person have the right to be secure in their person and property?
No, not stated as an absolute as you have done. There are caveats and conditions. Does a criminal in prison have a right to be secure in their property? No. Should you be allowed to violate a contract and cost me tens of thousands of dollars and then say I have no claim on your property, and the government cannot take it on my behalf by force? No. You have no such right that is not conditioned upon you obeying the law and keeping your agreements.
Skip says: We might want to define a right as the absence of the initiation of force or an agreement in which to not harm others or their property unless they are initiating force or fraud against you first; self defense.
You might want to, I refuse. I will stick with a definition that makes logical sense, a Right is an agreement by Society that (a) it will not pass laws to punish a behavior or act; and / or (b) will make its best effort to punish those that violate the right, with force if necessary, and lethal force if necessary.
Your definition is too narrow and fails to describe the right to free speech, the right to be charged and have a trial, your right to practice your religion, your right to vote, your right to association, to date and marry as you please, and many other such rights.
And you do NOT get to initiate force against somebody for fraud; discovering you have been defrauded does not give you the right to beat up the perpetrator or kill them.
Tony C. An entire society in 1776 disagrees with your moronic thinking. Really you can’t understand this simple concept?
Now wonder your a socialist.
DavidM: It doesn’t make a difference if people think their taxes are too high, they approve of the services, and therefore of the size of government.
DavidM says: Why do you assume that my motive is greed?
It is the most parsimonious explanation of your views; despite your numerous protests, and I have read enough of your drivel that I do not take you at your word. Perhaps you think you are after “efficiency,” I think you are after a free ride and really do not care about other people.
David,
Doesn’t that poll that you cite show that 50% of those polled believe that THIER taxes are too high and that the rich and corporations aren’t paying enough of their share? That’s how I read it.
john530 wrote: “Doesn’t that poll that you cite show that 50% of those polled believe that THIER taxes are too high and that the rich and corporations aren’t paying enough of their share? That’s how I read it.”
Yes, I read it that way too.
Also interesting is the shift in the polling after 9/11/2001. Before 9/11, 65% thought their taxes were too high, then it dropped to 47%. That’s an 18% drop. Perhaps National Security became important as something they were willing to pay more for. Or perhaps as our politicians preached the need to raise taxes, people were persuaded of the need to do so.
Tony C. – Do you have any clue what that generation went through to even get what rights they got. They were wrong? They risked being convicted from being traitors in an attempt to secure the rights of humans. They were not perfect but at least the understood the basic concept of human rights.
No, you are the one that is wrong. You can even answer simple questions nor observe the many abrogations of the Constitution and the usurpations it allows.
And David, same on you for misleading the readers on tax law. The first IRC was enacted in 1932. Had it involved a personal income tax they would not have had to enact the Victory tax during the law.
Should ne the Federal Statue, Not Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code
So did everyone have to pay taxes before 1954?
Skip wrote: “So did everyone have to pay taxes before 1954?”
Of course. The codification of U.S. Statutes does not invalidate laws; it only seeks to make the laws more understandable. The tax laws have undergone changes several times since 1913. I mentioned the 1954 date in reply to your query about why the IRC is not considered positive law. It was 1954 when Congress made the entire Internal Revenue Code positive law. Congress has acted a number of times to legislate an income tax upon us. I don’t know why you keep denying this fact.
Skip says: I will protect “all” your unalienable rights, no matter what, how or who you think you derive them from.
I see. So if I think I have an inalienable right to murder somebody for insulting me, or beating them mercilessly with a baseball bat when they disagree with me, or if I think I have an inalienable right to coerce somebody to work in my fields for nothing but food, you will support that.
Either you are lying, or I have no desire to be enslaved or murdered by what you consider an “inalienable” right under your own authority. In either circumstance, I reject your definition.
Tony, I didn’t decide the definition of what an inalienable right is. That has been longer established and it is the foundation of our Constitution. Their goal was to protect unalienable rights by setting up a government to accomplish this. They thought by giving government specific and limited duties it would effectively limit the potential undesirably activities. That this would protect the Citizens from the every reaching powers they had experienced under King George.
You wrote: “I see. So if I think I have an inalienable right to murder somebody for insulting me, or beating them mercilessly with a baseball bat when they disagree with me, or if I think I have an inalienable right to coerce somebody to work in my fields for nothing but food, you will support that.”
That is not what a right is. A right is exactly the opposite. The things you noted above would be taking away their rights.
Doesn’t a person have the right to be secure in their person and property? Should we not have the right to go out into the world and do as we see fit in order to survive, hopefully prosper and be happy, as long as we do not deprive others of their unalienable rights?
If individuals and groups can go around stealing my property, beat me with a bat, or enslave me, how could I ever have security and happiness.
You have the “right” to go out in society and as long as you do not harm others, or their property, you may enter in contracts, associate with Muslims, fascist and communists, you may provide products or services to others as long as you do not coerce, defraud or harm them or their property. Some call any such action, as the “initiation or force”. If someone initiates force against you, you have the “right” to defend yourself against them. The world has adopted these principles both of not harming others but also of protecting yourself from being harmed by others.
Pollution is even protected by unalienable rights, as would not that be harming someone if they are exposed to air, water, soil or radiation pollution.
We might want to define a right as the absence of the initiation of force or an agreement in which to not harm others or their property unless they are initiating force or fraud against you first; self defense.
“If we do not have a consensus of what ‘rights’ are, there is little chance our free society will survive.” – Ron Paul, 1988.
An individual right is the same thing by the way as an unalienable right. Some consider civil rights as those granted by government. My understanding is that government has not rights therefore it cannot grant something it does not have itself. Only individuals can have rights. The only rights that a group could possibly have is those that it’s gets from the individuals involved. The group, just as each individual within the group, cannot initiate force or fraud against others.
I think that it is important to also attempt to understand what our founding fathers especially someone like Jefferson who used the phrase “unalienable rights” in the Declaration of Independence, thought. Most people also deem both inalienable and unalienable as being the same. There are plenty of stuff on the web for you to read on this. The idea of life, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness, kind of sum up the concept. Property rights are inherent under the concept, as only you can own your own body, use it for work and store you labor by purchasing property.
Please understand that the concept of an unalienable rights is one thing and how to best protect them is another issue for another day.
Skip: No, you love to accuse me of your crimes: YOU just make crap up.
DavidM: It isn’t about the money we pay, it is about the greed of those, like you, that do not want to pay what they are required to pay.
The rich do not pay the top income tax rate, the vast majority of their income is capital gains tax. Mitt Romney is an example, his tax returns show he pays about 14% on his actual income for the year. Warren Buffett is another example that has shared his tax returns and pays about the same. The rich pay LESS as a percentage of their actual income than the middle class (people earning under $250K per year) pays. The actual richest “legal persons” in the USA, the largest multi-national corporations, can use loopholes in our tax system to pay zero taxes on income earned in the USA.
Norway charges the wealthy higher taxes than the USA, as a percentage of income, and their tax system offers no escape; while ours offer myriad forms of avoidance, all of which I consider corruptions of the system.
The problem is not the inflow of money to the government, or 80% of the outflow of money from the government, both of those are things of which we the people approve by super-majority. The problem is the greed of those that do not want to pay their share, and corrupt politicians to change the tax code so they won’t have to pay their share.
DavidM says: Your perspective about what is a legitimate role of government is completely different from mine and at least half of the citizens of this great country.
Bullshit. Social Security and Medicare have over a 70% approval rate among all voting age citizens. The idea of having a “strong national defense” system has something like a 95% approval rating. The idea of rules and regulations about safety applying to ingestibles (food and medicine) is nearly universal; rules and regulations on product safety, building safety, and road safety are nearly universal as well. The vast majority of the country agrees. Your beliefs are in the minority.
DavidM says: I do not think that writing a check for half your income and handing it to your next door neighbor to spend as he deems most beneficial for everybody is a fair share.
This is a ridiculously cartoonish representation of what happens; but for the sake of argument, why are you the only one handing somebody a check? Doesn’t some neighbor hand you a check as well?
But your individual neighbor is not your partner; your partner in your enterprise is all of society, past, present, and future. Other citizens built the roads you use, other citizens died protecting your freedom, other citizens built the bridges, drainage systems, traffic controls and freeways you use. Other citizens paid to have the buildings you frequent inspected for safety and stability. Other citizens paid to have the products in your home inspected to not kill you are burn your house down. Other citizens paid to have your medicines inspected so you would not be defrauded, and to reduce the risk of them killing you. Other citizens built the courthouses and postal service and pay the police and judges that keep you safe and enforce your contracts; even if you never need them it is your freedom to use them and the threat of their participation that keeps you from being a victim of fraud or breach of contract, and other citizens provide that to you.
I could go on, but your environment as a whole is provided by other citizens, you were born into it and are apparently so stupidly self-centered that you think it should all be free to you. You do not owe your taxes to a specific neighbor, you owe your taxes to society as a whole, because society as a whole is the partner in your business that creates an economic environment and handles all the behind-the-scenes work that makes your business even possible to execute.
Tony C wrote: “It isn’t about the money we pay, it is about the greed of those, like you, that do not want to pay what they are required to pay.”
Why do you assume that my motive is greed? My motive is simply efficiency, reducing waste, and enabling all of society to have a better life rather than being enslaved by government. I would pay more to have smaller government, but unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
Tony C wrote: “The rich do not pay the top income tax rate, the vast majority of their income is capital gains tax.”
You are mixing apples and oranges now. I was talking about income tax, and now you are talking about a tax on gains from investing money.
DavidM wrote: “Your perspective about what is a legitimate role of government is completely different from mine and at least half of the citizens of this great country.”
Tony C wrote: “Bullshit. Social Security and Medicare have over a 70% approval rate among all voting age citizens.”
Changing the subject again. Nothing but sophistry from you lately. About half of the country think our taxes are too high. See the following Gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
DavidM wrote: “I do not think that writing a check for half your income and handing it to your next door neighbor to spend as he deems most beneficial for everybody is a fair share.”
Tony C wrote: “This is a ridiculously cartoonish representation of what happens; but for the sake of argument, why are you the only one handing somebody a check? Doesn’t some neighbor hand you a check as well?”
Perhaps so, but the point is who do you trust more to make your money go further? The person who earned the money or your neighbor who did not earn it? As your earnings get larger, the analogy gets more problematic because the check you write will likely be much larger than the check you get from your neighbor to spend on what is beneficial for the community. It can be entirely likely in today’s scenario that you had your neighbor a check for $30,000 at the end of the year, and then because of tax credits to your poor neighbor, you have to write him another check for $2,000 for tax credits earned and you never receive a check from anybody. In your mind, that is fair, but not everybody thinks the same way. We all know that the check you write to your neighbor for his tax credits for being poor will be spent well, right?
Tony C wrote: “I could go on, but your environment as a whole is provided by other citizens, you were born into it and are apparently so stupidly self-centered that you think it should all be free to you.”
Not so. You know full well that I believe in taxes. I just think they are too high. All the infrastructure you mention can be done with much less. When I see the government spending millions on buildings in other countries that are not being used, and when I see airplanes ordered that will never be used, and government conventions where the shrimp cocktail costs $4 per shrimp, and Congressmen being driven around by chauffeurs in limousines, etc., I have a sneaking suspicion that government has too much money.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ed+%26+elaine+brown
We may feel strongly for or against a law or a reg, but while we argue our position the one thing we can’t do is get stupid.
Below is just one of many cases I’ve seen where the people felt strongly, but these people got stupid & of course the govt stepped in & put them in prison.
IE:
Elaine Brown gets 35 years in prison for standoff
October 2nd, 2009
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNFgaorE2z9cYaXyjNlc0rQtQznQD9B32QK80
By HOLLY RAMER (AP)
CONCORD, N.H. — A New Hampshire woman sentenced to 35 years in prison Friday for plotting to kill federal agents during a nine-month standoff at her fortress-like home said she will continue to fight government corruption from behind bars.
At her sentencing hearing, Elaine Brown said the judge’s decision mattered little to her given her age and beliefs.
“I’m 68 years old. I don’t have much time left on this Earth. But I have no doubt I will spend eternity with my husband and a myriad of others who have fought tyranny and oppression,” she said, pausing several times to clear her throat but maintaining a defiant tone.
She and her husband, Ed, holed up in their 110-acre compound in Plainfield in early 2007 after being sentenced to five years in prison for tax evasion. They were arrested nine months later by federal agents posing as supporters, and were convicted in July on a variety of weapons and conspiracy charges.
Brown insisted that she and her husband were being punished for nothing more than civil disobedience and “daring to challenge and question this massive government.”
“Our state motto is ‘Live free or Die,’ which is what we proclaimed over and over during our resistance,” she said. “I will always resist.”
The sentence fell between the 30 years plus one month the defense requested and the 41-44 years the prosecution sought.
Judge George Singal rejected Brown’s civil disobedience argument, saying she was not engaged in principled dissent to laws she believed to be unjust.
“Let’s not be fooled,” he said. “The conduct engaged in by Mrs. Brown was purely criminal conduct. It was a threat to kill without a trial, without a hearing.”
One of the charges — possession of destructive devices — carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in prison. Defense attorney Bjorne Lange argued that adding just one more month to that sentence would have been sufficient, saying there was no evidence Brown handled any of the weapons or explosives, other than the handgun she was holding when arrested.
Lange also urged the judge to take into account Brown’s past: she worked her way through dental school, raised two children and had no brushes with the law until her arrest on the tax evasion charges.
“They want you to look at what happened at the time of the offense and say that’s the sum of Elaine Brown,” said Lange, who also requested the lower sentence in part because no one was hurt during the standoff.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen countered that the only reason no one got hurt was because the U.S. Marshal Service was so patient, ignoring requests from him and others to end the standoff earlier.
“To stand before you now and say ‘Please be compassionate because I didn’t get the opportunity to kill anyone,’ is a statement I think should cause the court to look in the opposite direction,” he said.
The prosecutor described the weapons strewn about the couple’s home — 22 pipe bombs and a 50 caliber rifle in the bedroom alongside Elaine Brown’s stuffed animal collection. Bulletproof vests and ammunition in the closet with the jigsaw puzzles. An explosive device on the jelly cupboard in the kitchen.
The handgun Brown carried was capable of killing 17 people without reloading, Huftalen said, and there was a fanny pack full of extra bullets on the kitchen table.
Brown may have raised her own children well, but she also “mothered” supporters who were drawn to the home, Huftalen said, including a 21-year-old who is now serving 20 years in prison for his role in the standoff.
“This was her house. Mr. Brown was certainly seen as the patriarch, but she was there. She ran it, she financed it … and she encouraged people to come in,” he said.
During the couple’s second trial, Ed Brown testified that the weapons were for self defense and that explosives in the woods around the home were to scare intruders, not harm them. But in a radio interview during the standoff, he said if authorities came in to kill him or arrest him “the chief of police in this town, the sheriff, the sheriff himself will die. This is war now, folks.”
His sentencing has been delayed while he undergoes a psychiatric evaluation to determine his competency.
http://freethebrowns.com/
At what point do the Citizens of a nation fight back against tyrannical government? As I’ve pointed out there is 100% proof that the IRS, DOJ and Justices are fraudulently enforcing the Federal Individual Income Tax. See what happens when you defy fascism.
There is a better way to fight them and their fraudulent actions.
Skip wrote: “As I’ve pointed out there is 100% proof that the IRS, DOJ and Justices are fraudulently enforcing the Federal Individual Income Tax.”
I must have missed that memo.
DavidM says: Without the money, the corruption would cease to exist.
It is the politicians that are corrupt, it is politicians that break their sworn oaths to protect and serve and instead act in their own selfish interest. They don’t do that for tax money, they do it for personal gain derived from private fortunes, usually private fortunes run by people that want to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and shift that burden to citizens instead. Or rich private commercial enterprises that do not want to compete fairly for legitimate projects to be funded by tax money. Or rich private commercial enterprises that do not want to pay for the harm they are causing to the rest of us in their pursuit of profit.
The corruption is not about the money, it is about the greed of the rich that would rather pay 3% of their income in bribes to criminal politicians than 30% of their income as their fair and responsible share of taxes to the society that makes their income and fortune possible in the first place.
The corruption is about the free riders, the greedy criminals avoiding their responsibility and duty to others that want to deprive us and harm us for profit without consequences. It is the squatters that exploit the free services and protections of our country for massive profits without paying their fair share of those profits to their landlord and partner: We the people.
It isn’t about the level of money in the government; about 80% of that money is legitimately necessary to perform the functions and provide the benefits we the people have long decided we want our government to perform and provide.
Tony C wrote: “The corruption is not about the money, it is about the greed of the rich that would rather pay 3% of their income in bribes to criminal politicians than 30% of their income as their fair and responsible share of taxes to the society that makes their income and fortune possible in the first place.”
It’s not about the money, but about greed? I’m not following your line of thought here. Greed about something other than money?
The United States already has the most progressive tax system in the world which penalizes the rich more than any other country. Yet, its effect on benefits to the poor is not as effective as those that have a more equitable tax system.
America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. Its government is among the least.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/
Your perspective about what is a legitimate role of government is completely different from mine and at least half of the citizens of this great country. Furthermore, you under-represent the tax rate. The upper federal tax rate for those earning over $400,000 is 39.6%. Add in State and local taxes, and the tax rate is well over 50% for somebody living in a state like California. You consider that a fair share, but I do not. In my opinion, the government really doesn’t need much more than about 10% of our income to perform legitimate functions of government. The plethora of examples of wasteful spending in government is clear proof that they have too much money.
To gauge what is considered a reasonable tax rate, imagine writing a check to your next door neighbor for the amount of the tax. I do not think that writing a check for half your income and handing it to your next door neighbor to spend as he deems most beneficial for everybody is a fair share.
I was surprised when you posted previously that an IRS audit is not abusive. Most business owners consider it abusive to have the government come in and do an audit. I personally have never experienced an IRS audit, but I would suppose it would bother me quite a bit to have people coming into my office scouring over records for four or five days, trying to find some mistakes made somewhere that would result in me having to pay even more taxes. I wouldn’t like having to pay people to assist them in that endeavor either. I’m trying to run a business and I don’t need that kind of expense, hassle and disruption in my business.
Tony C. wrote: The corruption is about the free riders, the greedy criminals avoiding their responsibility and duty to others that want to deprive us and harm us for profit without consequences. It is the squatters that exploit the free services and protections of our country for massive profits without paying their fair share of those profits to their landlord and partner: We the people.
Tony, corruption has nothing to do with profits or free riders. You just make crap up. Corruption is using fraudulent accounting schemes, to make a corporation look profitable when it is not. Corruption is politicians and bureaucrats taking kickbacks from government contractors. Corruption is enforcing a personal income tax that has never been passed by the Legislative process. Corruption is over billing the government for products or services rendered. Corruption is Bernie Madoff. Corruption is the cover up of what really happened on September 11, 2001 Corruption is the unlawful usurpation of individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Corruption is socialists and fascists who lie, cheat, mislead, distort, extort and support the ongoing unlawful and fraudulent initiation of force and coercion by government for person gain.