HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » House Judiciary Chair Int...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 02:50 PM

House Judiciary Chair Introduces Unconstitutional Bill To Permanently Abolish The Income Tax

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:51 PM - Edit history (2)

Last week, House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the Tax Code Termination Act, which would abolish the entire federal tax code in 2018, with exceptions for Social Security and Medicare taxes — and replace it with, well, nothing. Goodlatte’s bill does offer some vague principles that should guide Congress in enacting a replacement tax system, but it does nothing to actually replace the massive amount of federal revenues it will eliminate.

In addition to cutting off about 60 percent of federal revenues, the bill includes an unconstitutional provision providing that the end of the tax code cannot be delayed except by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. The Constitution does not permit a past Congress to tie the hands of a future Congress, so this provision making it functionally impossible for future congresses to delay the end of most federal revenue is unconstitutional.

Goodlatte believes that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional, so it is both unsurprising that the House Judiciary Chair is too unfamiliar with the Constitution to draft a constitutional tax bill and ironic that his bill actually permits taxes for the two programs he thinks are unconstitutional.

Sixty-nine members of Congress co-sponsored Goodlatte’s unconstitutional proposal to bankrupt the federal government.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/31/1515901/house-judiciary-chair-introduces-unconstitutional-bill-to-permanently-abolish-the-income-tax/

Sponsors of the bill:


HR 352 IH
113th CONGRESS

To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 23, 2013

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. COFFMAN, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. FORBES, Mr. LONG, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ISSA, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. UPTON, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. KLINE, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. POSEY, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. PITTS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CARTER, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. MICA, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. TERRY, Mr. GOHMERT, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CONAWAY, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. HURT, Mr. LATTA, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. BENISHEK, and Mr. BOUSTANY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.352:

Status of the bill:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.00352:

COSPONSORS(69), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


But in brackets, didn't show first time - --followed by Cosponsors withdrawn-- ?


Rep Amodei, Mark E. - 1/23/2013
Rep Bachmann, Michele - 1/23/2013
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 1/23/2013
Rep Benishek, Dan - 1/23/2013
Rep Bishop, Rob - 1/23/2013
Rep Blackburn, Marsha - 1/23/2013
Rep Bonner, Jo - 1/23/2013
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. - 1/23/2013
Rep Brady, Kevin - 1/23/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. - 1/23/2013
Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 1/23/2013
Rep Calvert, Ken - 1/23/2013
Rep Campbell, John - 1/23/2013
Rep Carter, John R. - 1/23/2013
Rep Coffman, Mike - 1/23/2013
Rep Conaway, K. Michael - 1/23/2013
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 1/23/2013
Rep Fleming, John - 1/23/2013
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 1/23/2013
Rep Franks, Trent - 1/23/2013
Rep Garrett, Scott - 1/23/2013
Rep Gingrey, Phil - 1/23/2013
Rep Gohmert, Louie - 1/23/2013
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan - 1/23/2013
Rep Hastings, Doc - 1/23/2013
Rep Hurt, Robert - 1/23/2013
Rep Issa, Darrell E. - 1/23/2013
Rep Johnson, Bill - 1/23/2013
Rep Jordan, Jim - 1/23/2013
Rep King, Steve - 1/23/2013
Rep Kingston, Jack - 1/23/2013
Rep Kline, John - 1/23/2013
Rep Lamborn, Doug - 1/23/2013
Rep Latham, Tom - 1/23/2013
Rep Latta, Robert E. - 1/23/2013
Rep Long, Billy - 1/23/2013
Rep Lucas, Frank D. - 1/23/2013
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine - 1/23/2013
Rep Marchant, Kenny - 1/23/2013
Rep McCarthy, Kevin - 1/23/2013
Rep McClintock, Tom - 1/23/2013
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. - 1/23/2013
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 1/23/2013
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" - 1/23/2013
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy - 1/23/2013
Rep Mica, John L. - 1/23/2013
Rep Miller, Jeff - 1/23/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 1/23/2013
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 1/25/2013
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 1/23/2013
Rep Posey, Bill - 1/23/2013
Rep Price, Tom - 1/23/2013
Rep Roe, David P. - 1/23/2013
Rep Rogers, Harold - 1/23/2013
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 1/23/2013
Rep Rogers, Mike J. - 1/23/2013
Rep Scalise, Steve - 1/23/2013
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 1/23/2013
Rep Shimkus, John - 1/23/2013
Rep Simpson, Michael K. - 1/23/2013
Rep Terry, Lee - 1/23/2013
Rep Thornberry, Mac - 1/23/2013
Rep Upton, Fred - 1/23/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim - 1/23/2013
Rep Walden, Greg - 1/23/2013
Rep Weber, Randy K. Sr. - 1/23/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. - 1/23/2013
Rep Wittman, Robert J. - 1/23/2013
Rep Woodall, Rob - 1/23/2013

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:HR00352:@@@P

I just stumbled on this. Any comments?

17 replies, 1131 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply House Judiciary Chair Introduces Unconstitutional Bill To Permanently Abolish The Income Tax (Original post)
freshwest Feb 2013 OP
PoliticAverse Feb 2013 #1
freshwest Feb 2013 #7
PoliticAverse Feb 2013 #13
freshwest Feb 2013 #16
graham4anything Feb 2013 #2
freshwest Feb 2013 #12
safeinOhio Feb 2013 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #8
freshwest Feb 2013 #14
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #4
zbdent Feb 2013 #5
pinboy3niner Feb 2013 #11
freshwest Feb 2013 #15
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #6
Cerridwen Feb 2013 #9
NYC Liberal Feb 2013 #10
freshwest Feb 2013 #17

Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 02:56 PM

1. Similar bill introduced in previous year that went nowhere...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:07 PM

7. So this is a perennial favorite? I never heard of most of these representatives, either.

Sensenbrenner, Gohmert, Issa and Hastings are familiar names. It shows the mindset of the 113th Congress under GOP Tea Party rule to make mischief has not changed.

Thanks for the information on the other. Both claim it is Constitutional:

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:

Clause 1 Section 8 of Article 1 of the United States Constitution and Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution.


They read a tiny piece of the Constitution and ignore the rest as suits them?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:37 PM

13. There are many bills introduced each session the purpose of which is to score points

with constituents but which have no chance of going anywhere and may not even be constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:48 PM

16. I notice Blackburn and Bachmann on the list of sponsors.

So this is all show and mirrors?

What a waste of time - I didn't notice Boehner or Cantor in the list, though.

In going back, I found this left out. Perhaps Think Progress jumped the gun, if this means what I think it means...

Since it was in brackets, it didn't show first time - 'followed by Cosponsors withdrawn'?

Think I should delete? TP has not updated the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:01 PM

2. then of course this bozo was wondering why his snow wasn't shovelled and his garbage collected

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:27 PM

12. If he's rich enough, he can pay for it. I think these are rural areas that some of them live in.

Out there they can get farmers to snow plow and burn their trash in a barrel. The rest of the people in town - well, I guess we're just supposed to go away along with the rest of civilization, maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:02 PM

3. OK

just replace with a "wealth" tax. Very progressive. Lets start with wealth over 1 million dollars and put a 10% tax on it every other year. Measure the wealth of the 20% richest and you would find there would be enough to pay for everything we do now only double. No longer a need for SS or MC tax, or even sales taxes and local property tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:10 PM

8. And instantaneously nothing would be worth a million dollars

"Hey! Wanna buy a 8 bedroom house?"

"Sounds nice. How much is it?"

"A million dollars."

"Whoa! No way man. My current house is only worth $800,000. If I buy that thing I'll owe a hundred grand to the government."

"Okay, what if I sold it to you for only $950,000?"

"Deal."

--- Late the following April ---

"I see you didn't pay the wealth tax on your new 8 bedroom mansion."

"It's exempt because it's not worth a million dollars."

"Nonsense! It's a mansion!"

"But I only paid $950,000. I never would have bought it for a million because I couldn't afford it. So, it's only worth $950,000 because that's the only price worth paying. That's the definition of value."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:37 PM

14. Looking over the bill as written, it appears to protect the wealthy:

SEC. 3. NEW FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM.

(a) Structure- The Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system should be a simple and fair system that--

(1) applies a low rate to all Americans;

(2) provides tax relief for working Americans;

(3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax collection abuses;

(4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment;

(5) promotes economic growth and job creation; and

(6) does not penalize marriage or families.

(b) Timing of Implementation- In order to ensure an easy transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system should be approved by Congress in its final form no later than July 4, 2017.

I emboldened the two parts that I believe were put in to protect the wealthy - this goes directly against the management and regulation of assets previously left alone during the Bush taxes. Which allowed the tremendous accumulation of untaxable capital. IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:03 PM

4. Actually, pretty much every law is an imposition on any subsequent congress

If congress passes a law for the Policy X than it is implied that future congresses must allocate resources to meet the enforcement requirements.

I would also add that the legislature gets to make its own rules such as what portion of the senate is required for cloture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:06 PM

5. Is he going to fund the military with his own personal cash?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zbdent (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:21 PM

11. Surprisingly, Buck McKeon, Chair of House Armed Services, is a co-sponsor

Especially surprising after he said sequestration cuts would be disastrous bot to national defense and the U.S. economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zbdent (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:41 PM

15. It might be interesting to see how many representatives have shares in private MIC contractors.

They could add some additional language for that in another bill. The GOP never touches the sacred cow. I suspect this bill, no matter how hopeless it will be to pay, will used as leverage on debt ceiling fights in the future. That is why OFA did not end all operations last years, but is still lobbying for progressive legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:07 PM

6. Might be crazy and ill-advised, but probably not unconstitutional

Congress can repeal any of its own laws, including the Internal Revenue Act. The 16th Amendment authorizes a tax on incomes, but does not require one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:15 PM

9. Perhaps those 70 people would like to return their salaries

to the general fund; coming, as those monies do, from taxes.

Perhaps, they could then follow that by removing themselves from government employ since they appear to be of the opinion that government is something to destroy. I know of very few employers who would hire someone who has stated they are specifically out to destroy the employers' business and would most assuredly fire them were they to discover such.

Send them their termination notices and let the "invisible hand of the free market" sort them out.

Or, better yet, let's drop them somewhere they do not have to deal with any form of government. I would welcome the opportunity to study their attempts at "walking their talk."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:17 PM

10. Dumbass bill, but how is that provision unconstitutional?

"the Constitution does not permit a past Congress to tie the hands of a future Congress"

Where? The constitution sets no rules about the requirements for the passage of bills or resolutions (except for a few specific cases like expulsion and veto overrides). Hence why the Senate can require 60 votes on some bills and 51 on others.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

If both houses passed this bill they would be agreeing to this rule.

A future Congress could easily get around it: by passing a bill repealing the provision itself (or the whole bill).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:56 PM

17. I am guessing that is why the Senate is there to prevent chaos from the House changing its mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread