YesToHellWith

VICTORY — THE TAX THAT DISAPPEARED, BUT LEFT THE MACHINE BEHIND

How do you defeat a government machine when you refuse to examine the people who built it?

For decades, the tax-honesty and freedom movements have recycled the same arguments about words, definitions, statutes, and jurisdiction. There have been courageous individuals, but courage without an effective strategy has produced precious little institutional change.

The dinosaurs of these movements must either change their tactics or make room for fresh ideas, new voices, and a fundamentally different approach.

We must examine the human beings behind the expansion of federal power: the judges who ignored constitutional boundaries, the legislators who enlarged governmental without authority, and the executive officials who aggrandized the government into an immense enforcement apparatus.

We must understand their ambitions, presumptions, institutional interests, and the circumstances they exploited.

That is precisely what the Liberty Dialogues Victory Series undertakes.

A telling observation:

In 1939, only about 5% of American workers paid federal income taxes. By 1945, approximately 90% were filing returns, and 60% were paying income taxes.

How did that happen?

The Victory Series has traced the federal government’s claimed authority to tax the ordinary earnings of private Americans back through the founding of the Republic. Our examination challenges the failure to establish an original constitutional delegation for that general exaction.

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court’s decisions, particularly during the 1930s, supplied the judicial framework upon which Congress and the executive branch proceeded.

President Franklin Roosevelt, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., and specific congressional leaders then expanded the machinery.

And in 1942, Congress enacted the extraordinary Victory Tax.

It reached millions of lower-income Americans who had previously escaped regular federal income-tax liability.

But there was another objective.

On November 24, 1943, Congressman Wilbur Mills explained that the Victory Tax provided experience with employer withholding that could subsequently be extended to the regular income tax.

The machinery’s future application was contemplated from the beginning.

The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 made widespread withholding a permanent feature of federal income-tax administration.

Private employers were compelled to become unpaid federal tax-collection intermediaries—deducting taxes from their workers’ earnings, keeping records, and delivering the money to Treasury.

Meanwhile, the government used patriotic persuasion, including Disney’s Donald Duck film The New Spirit, to portray compliance as willing participation in defending America. I deem this a psychological operation campaign.

Then came another extraordinary revelation.

The Senate Finance Committee expressly sought to retain approximately 11 million Americans who had been subject only to the Victory Tax. It even rejected a Treasury proposal that would have relieved approximately nine million people of income-tax liability.

In 1944, Congress repealed the temporary Victory Tax.

But the collection machine survived.

And the government continued operating through the system that wartime legislation had helped establish.

Consider the implications.

The judiciary supplied only judicial precedent. Congress expanded the statutory reach. The executive branch built the enforcement apparatus.

But the accumulated actions of three branches of government cannot manufacture a constitutional power that was never delegated.

This is why we must move beyond the tired arguments of the freedom movement.

We must expose the historical decisions, identify the individuals responsible, defeat unsupported presumptions, and pursue meaningful remedies.

That is the mission of LibertyDialogues.com, working alongside ConstitutionalCounty.org to promote constitutional accountability beginning at the local level.

And the work is not confined to books or videos. Students of the Liberty Dialogues System are reporting victories in courts and before government agencies around the globe.

The objective is not to argue endlessly about freedom. It is to exercise our rights, challenge unlawful assertions of authority, and obtain results.

Visit TheyNeverHadIt.com. Examine the historical evidence. Study the Liberty Dialogues System. Become involved through ConstitutionalCounty.org.

And demand that every governmental assertion of authority be traced to its legitimate constitutional foundation.

Government does not acquire constitutional authority simply by exercising power. And the American people will never restore their freedom until they demand that every exercise of governmental power be justified under the Constitution.

ATTORNEYS: GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE OR SERVANTS OF THE SYSTEM?

How can a profession be entrusted with defending the American people against abuses of governmental power when its livelihood, advancement, and professional standing depend upon the very system it is expected to challenge?

There is a reason attorneys have been compared to snakes, pond scum, and worse for centuries.

But perhaps the greatest paradox surrounding the attorney profession is that we laugh at attorneys collectively, yet frequently admire them individually.

We tell jokes about their greed, their dishonesty, their manipulation of language, and their disregard for truth.

Yet when someone introduces himself as an attorney, we suddenly treat him with respect. We presume intelligence, credibility, and authority.

Why?

What happened to the joke?

Did the profession suddenly become honorable because one of its members walked into the room?

Or have we developed the extraordinary habit of ridiculing a profession while simultaneously rewarding its members with the very respect and authority our ridicule calls into question?

Perhaps the greatest joke about attorneys is not the one we tell about them. It is the one we play upon ourselves by continuing to presume that professional credentials establish personal integrity.

And that brings us to the real scandal.

We have allowed a professional class to become the gatekeeper of justice in a republic supposedly founded upon the inherent rights of the people.

Think about the contradiction.

We are told our rights are inalienable. That they do not originate with government. That government exists to secure them.

Yet when government threatens those rights, the ordinary American is frequently compelled, as a practical matter, to hire a licensed attorney to defend what was never government’s to take.

And that attorney earns his living within the very system whose authority he is expected to challenge.

Does anyone recognize the fundamental conflict?

Attorneys are trained to manipulate language, to parse, qualify, distinguish, and reinterpret words until a simple question of right and wrong becomes an exhausting contest of procedure.

They can argue one proposition today and its opposite tomorrow.

They can transform a question of inherent rights into a dispute over technicalities, deadlines, jurisdiction, standing, precedent, and procedural compliance.

Some of those distinctions are essential to justice. But others can become instruments for avoiding the very truth the proceeding is supposed to establish.

And when procedure becomes more important than truth, the judicial system ceases to be an instrument of justice and becomes an instrument of institutional self-preservation.

Now consider the financial incentives.

Law firms must generate revenue. Attorneys must manage their time. Prosecutors face enormous caseloads. Public defenders are frequently overwhelmed. Courts are pressured to dispose of matters efficiently.

And what is the predictable result?

Settlement. Negotiation. Plea bargaining.

The overwhelming majority of federal criminal convictions result from guilty pleas rather than jury verdicts.

The right to trial by jury remains celebrated as a cornerstone of American liberty, yet comparatively few federal criminal defendants exercise that right through a completed trial.

Why?

Because the system rewards negotiated dispositions, while the risks and costs of proceeding to trial can be extraordinary.

Justice is not supposed to be a production line.

Yet we have developed a system in which efficiency can become more important than examining the government’s accusations.

And the attorney class is indispensable to keeping that machinery operating.

I experienced this firsthand.

During my own confrontation with the federal government, I was represented by public defenders with impressive credentials.

One had graduated second in his class at West Point.

Yet when I sought to present arguments concerning my understanding of the federal income tax laws, arguments I believed were supported by Cheek v. United States, I was told that counsel could be sanctioned for raising them.

Understand the significance.

In Cheek, the Supreme Court recognized that a genuinely held misunderstanding of federal tax law can negate the willfulness required for certain criminal tax offenses, even if that misunderstanding is unreasonable.

The Court also distinguished such misunderstandings from claims that the tax laws themselves are unconstitutional.

But my central concern was that arguments I believed relevant to my state of mind were being excluded from the defense I wanted presented.

And that raises a fundamental question:

When a man faces imprisonment, should his ability to present a legitimate defense depend upon an attorney’s fear of professional consequences?

The answer should be obvious.

I also know of an individual who paid approximately $65,000 to a private attorney associated with the tax-honesty movement, only to be advised ultimately to accept a plea agreement.

It raises a serious concern about the difference between paying for vigorous advocacy and paying for an eventual surrender.

And now consider something even more disturbing.

The attorneys who operate the system frequently become the judges who control it.

They become prosecutors, legislators, judges, and justices.

The profession supplies many of those who write the rules, argue their meaning, determine their application, and decide whether challenges to their authority will even be heard.

Think about that concentration of institutional influence.

An attorney who spends decades operating within a professional culture of precedent, procedure, and institutional expectations may eventually sit in judgment over citizens who challenge those very expectations.

Does professional advancement guarantee impartiality?

Does membership in a bar association establish moral superiority?

Does a law degree confer wisdom, courage, or integrity?

Absolutely not.

And yet we have allowed the administration of justice to become so dominated by this profession that ordinary Americans are often treated as incapable of defending their own rights.

There is an interesting historical controversy involving the proposed Titles of Nobility Amendment of 1810, sometimes called the original Thirteenth Amendment.

Whether ratified or not, it reflected an early republican concern about titles, foreign influence, and privileged status.

That concern invites a modern question.

Have we permitted a professional class to acquire an influence over government that is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of equal citizenship?

The Constitution itself does not require federal judges to possess law degrees.

Why, then, should we assume that only attorneys possess the judgment necessary to serve in judicial office?

The American jury embodies the opposite principle: ordinary citizens are entrusted with decisions involving life, liberty, property, and guilt.

A principled citizen, properly educated in constitutional limits, evidence, procedure, and impartial judgment, may possess greater devotion to justice than an attorney whose entire career has been devoted to protecting institutional expectations.

Knowledge is necessary.

Integrity is indispensable.

But professional credentials are no substitute for either.

I have a close friend who is educated in law but refuses to become a BAR-licensed attorney. He has made that decision deliberately because he rejects the professional culture and institutional compromises we are discussing. He believes that his commitment to truth and justice is more important than membership in a profession whose practices he cannot conscientiously embrace.

His decision illustrates an important distinction: a person can possess knowledge of the law without surrendering his principles to the professional institutions that administer it.

Now I recognize that there are attorneys who have sacrificed income, careers, and personal security to defend the innocent and confront abuses of power.

They deserve recognition.

But their existence does not excuse the institutional incentives that can discourage such courage.

Consider the physician who devotes his life to healing, the nurse who comforts the suffering, or the monk who sacrifices material wealth to serve the poor.

Their highest calling is service.

Should the highest calling of an attorney be anything less?

And yet how many attorneys are prepared to risk their careers, reputations, and incomes to challenge a judge who exceeds his authority, a prosecutor who abuses his office, or a governmental presumption that cannot withstand examination?

The question is not whether courageous attorneys exist. The question is why the protection of our rights should depend upon finding one.

So what must change?

We must make meaningful self-representation more accessible.

We must hold judges, prosecutors, and attorneys accountable for demonstrable misconduct.

We must eliminate unnecessary professional barriers that prevent qualified citizens from participating in the administration of justice.

We must examine whether non-attorney citizens, properly qualified and trained, should have greater opportunities to serve in judicial positions.

And we must demand that every exercise of governmental authority be supported by demonstrable authority, rather than professional assertion or institutional presumption.

These are not attacks upon legitimate knowledge or necessary procedural safeguards.

They are demands that those safeguards serve the people rather than become barriers against them.

The American Republic was not established to provide attorneys with employment, judges with authority, or courts with perpetual business.

It was established upon the principle that government exists to secure rights that precede government itself.

And no profession should be permitted to convert the defense of those rights into a privilege available principally to those who can afford its services.

We have confused law with justice.

We have confused professional licensing with integrity.

We have confused judicial authority with infallibility.

And we have permitted institutional convenience to compete with the fundamental rights of human beings.

A republic cannot remain free when the defense of its people’s rights becomes the exclusive business of a profession whose interests may be better served by preserving the system than by challenging its authority.

The question is no longer whether we need attorneys.

The question is whether we will continue allowing attorneys to dominate the institutions that determine the meaning, enforcement, and protection of our freedoms.

Justice does not belong to attorneys.

It does not belong to judges.

It does not belong to government.

Justice belongs to the people.

And any profession that places its own preservation above the rights of the people has forfeited its claim to be the guardian of justice.

THE VICIOUS CYCLE

How Our Own Ignorance Destroys Our Freedom—and How We Can Break the Cycle

What if the greatest threat to your freedom is not the government—but your own ignorance?

And what if the very people you elect to protect your freedom are the ones who take it away, with your consent at the ballot box?

I believe there is a fundamental truth about human nature that is nearly inescapable.

Often, the greatest harm we suffer is the harm we inflict upon ourselves. And tragically, that harm seldom ends with us.

Examine your own life.

Think about the decisions you have made out of ignorance, anger, resentment, greed, jealousy, or spite.

Think about a time when you reached a conclusion without knowing the facts. You presumed something was true, acted upon that presumption, and later discovered that what you believed was entirely false.

What were the consequences?

Did you damage a relationship? Lose an opportunity? Hurt someone you loved? Destroy something valuable that you could never recover?

And did you learn from it?

Most of us like to believe we are reasonable people. That our judgments are sound. That our opinions are informed.

But how often do we confuse our emotions with the truth? How often do we refuse to examine evidence because discovering the truth might require acknowledging that we were wrong?

That is willful ignorance. And willful ignorance is particularly destructive because it is a condition we choose to maintain.

Now consider what happens when we take this same human weakness and apply it to the American political system.

Millions of Americans go to the polls without a meaningful understanding of their rights, their freedoms, or the constitutional limitations upon governmental power.

And whom do they elect?

People drawn from that very same population.

If the electorate is generally ignorant of constitutional constraints, why should we presume that those elected from it possess some extraordinary understanding of those constraints?

We elect representatives who may be just as ignorant as we are, entrust them with governmental authority, and watch as they enact legislation, expand regulations, and exercise increasing control over our lives.

And who suffers the consequences?

We do.

Then, rather than examine our responsibility for creating this condition, we blame the politicians, the opposing party, or the government itself.

But who placed these people in office?

Who voted based upon emotion, personality, promises, fear, or political allegiance rather than an informed understanding of constitutional authority?

We did.

And therein lies the vicious cycle.

An uninformed population elects uninformed representatives who exceed their constitutional authority, producing increasingly expansive and controlling legislation over the generally ignorant people who elected them.

Consider the enormous problems confronting America today.

Government spending. Public debt. Immigration. Economic instability. Governmental intrusion into the lives of peaceful Americans.

People argue endlessly about these issues.

But how many begin with the most fundamental question of all?

BY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY?

Not whether a policy is popular.

Not whether it makes us feel good.

Not whether our favorite politician supports it.

But whether the government possesses the authority to do what it proposes.

We proclaim our love of liberty while voting for greater governmental control. We condemn governmental overreach while demanding that government solve problems we have failed to address within ourselves, our families, and our communities.

We talk about freedom. But do we walk in freedom?

An individual who refuses to examine his own thinking may destroy a marriage.

A population that refuses to examine its own thinking may destroy a republic.

The underlying failure is remarkably similar.

We substitute presumption for knowledge, emotion for reason, and allegiance for principle.

But how do we break this vicious cycle?

We begin where we live.

Not in Washington, D.C.

Not with another national election.

But in our own counties, among our neighbors, within our communities, and with the public servants whose authority we can examine most directly.

This is the fundamental value of ConstitutionalCounty.org.

The Constitutional County concept offers a direct path toward overcoming the ignorance that perpetuates governmental overreach.

Imagine a county in which the people understand their fundamental rights, study their state and federal constitutions, and recognize the limitations upon every public office.

Imagine a sheriff who understands his oath of office and is committed to protecting the life, liberty, and property of the people, exercising his lawful authority without violating the rights of anyone.

And imagine citizens and local officials working together to examine governmental actions, demand evidence of authority, challenge unconstitutional conduct, and pursue accountability through lawful constitutional processes.

Not based upon political allegiance.

Not based upon personalities.

But upon principles that apply equally to everyone.

The people govern themselves. Representatives govern government. And justice addresses violations of rights.

A sheriff, like every other public servant, is bound by constitutional limitations. His office is not a license to exercise unlimited power. It is a public trust, subject to law and accountability.

And here is what makes this approach so important.

We cannot expect to restore constitutional government through an electorate that does not understand the Constitution.

The restoration of liberty does not require us to wait for millions of Americans to agree upon a political candidate.

It can begin with informed citizens in a single county, committed to understanding and defending the constitutional limitations upon governmental power.

Visit ConstitutionalCounty.org and consider what you and your neighbors can do to build a constitutionally informed community, with a sheriff and public servants committed to protecting the rights of the people.

And remember this:

A government that exceeds its authority is dangerous. But a people who do not understand the limits of that authority make such abuses possible.

We cannot remain ignorant of our freedom and expect others to preserve it.

The vicious cycle begins with us. And only we can end it.

MR. PRESIDENT, WHO HOLDS GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE?

A Hypothetical Conversation with President Donald Trump

Donald, welcome. It’s good to see you again.

And Donald, as I’ve encouraged you before, please dispense with the formalities. You need not call me Mr. Johnson. Beau will do just fine, as it always has in our private conversations.

I appreciate your deference to me as one of the sovereign American people, from whom your office derives its limited authority. But we need no titles or distinctions between us. We are free and equal men, sharing a concern for the future of our Republic.

So, Donald, let us speak about what ails America—and what we can do to remedy it.

There is a current concern I believe strikes at the very foundation of our constitutional Republic.

And that is the failure to hold governmental officials accountable when they violate the rights and freedoms of the American people.

Across this country, at the local, state, and federal levels, we find officials who exceed their authority, abuse their positions, and inflict terrible injuries upon the lives, liberty, and property of Americans who have violated no one’s rights.

And when those Americans seek justice, what do they encounter?

Immunity.

Sovereign immunity. Qualified immunity. Absolute immunity.

Different legal doctrines, certainly, but doctrines that can operate to shield governmental officials from accountability, even when serious injuries have occurred.

Please consider the extraordinary contradiction this presents.

The American people established a Constitution to define and confine governmental authority.

They delegated certain powers to their representatives and public servants.

They required those officials to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And yet, when those same officials exceed their authority and violate the rights of the people, the injured American may discover that the legal system offers no effective remedy.

How can that be reconciled with the fundamental purpose of constitutional government?

WHAT GOOD IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION IF THE OFFICIAL WHO VIOLATES IT CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?

And what good is an oath if its violation carries no meaningful consequence?

You have experienced governmental proceedings that you have publicly characterized as abuses of authority. You understand, from your own perspective, the enormous power that governmental institutions can bring to bear against an individual.

But Donald, consider the American who possesses none of your wealth, prominence, or resources.

Consider the man whose livelihood is destroyed by an official acting beyond his authority.

Consider the family whose property is taken without lawful justification.

Consider the citizen who is deprived of liberty and then discovers that the official responsible is protected from personal liability.

Where does that American turn?

This is an epidemic of immense proportions. One need only watch videos online and witness the gravity of the tragic display of abuse of power and the absence of due process, not to mention the dignity of honoring a sovereign people.

The people cannot receive remedy from the same institutions whose officials may have caused the injury.

The courts are also unresponsive or dismissive as well because an immunity doctrine prevents the claim from proceeding.

Are the people to receive remedy with agencies that may investigate themselves? Certainly not.

Donald, this is where the promises of constitutional government must be measured against their actual enforcement.

And I want to be clear about something.

I am not suggesting that every accusation against a governmental official is true.

Nor am I suggesting that officials should be deprived of the same due process protections we demand for every American.

Quite the contrary.

The principle must be universal.

Every credible allegation of governmental wrongdoing deserves impartial examination.

Where the evidence establishes criminal conduct, the responsible authorities must pursue prosecution in accordance with the law.

Where rights have been violated, the injured individual must have access to meaningful remedies.

And where officials have abused their positions, disciplinary and removal procedures must operate without favoritism.

PUBLIC OFFICE MUST NEVER BECOME A SANCTUARY FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.

Now, this brings us to something that you have expressed appreciation for in our conversations: the noble aims of ConstitutionalCounty.org.

Its purpose is not to create another political party or organization begging Washington to restore freedoms that the American people already possess.

It is to restore the constitutional understanding that the people govern themselves, while their representatives govern government.

And where must that restoration begin?

With the people themselves.

In their communities.

In their counties.

With citizens who understand their rights, representatives who understand their limitations, and sheriffs and other public officials who recognize that their authority is delegated, not inherent.

We do not need to replace federal overreach with state or county overreach.

We need to restore the same constitutional standard at every level.

The sheriff must respect it.

The governor must respect it.

Congress must respect it.

The judiciary must respect it.

And Donald, the President must respect it.

This is not a question of Republican or Democratic philosophy.

It is not a question of conservative or liberal ideology.

It is a question of whether the American Republic will remain faithful to the principle that governmental authority is limited and that those who exercise it are answerable for their conduct.

And that principle must be applied without political favoritism.

If a Republican official violates the rights of an American, the law must apply.

If a Democratic official violates those same rights, the law must apply.

And if someone serving within your own administration violates those rights, the standard must remain exactly the same.

Otherwise, what are we defending?

A political party?

An administration?

A favored official?

Or the constitutional rights and freedoms of the American people?

I believe you recognize that a Republic cannot remain free when governmental officials exercise powers beyond those delegated to them and the people are left without effective means of holding them accountable.

And this is precisely why I believe the work of ConstitutionalCounty.org is so important.

We must educate Americans to recognize the difference between lawful authority and the mere assertion of authority.

We must teach them to question presumptions, demand evidence of jurisdiction, and insist that public officials identify the lawful basis for the powers they claim to exercise.

And we must restore the expectation that an official who violates another person’s rights is no less accountable because he acts under the color of government.

Donald, the public trust which is entrusted to that official makes accountability especially important.

For government is not an end in itself.

It is an institution created for the protection of rights.

And when it becomes an instrument for violating those rights, it has departed from the purpose for which its authority was entrusted.

Now, I want to leave you with a question.

And I ask you to consider it earnestly.

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF A CONSTITUTION THAT LIMITS GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IF THE PEOPLE CANNOT OBTAIN A MEANINGFUL REMEDY WHEN THAT AUTHORITY IS UNLAWFULLY EXERCISED AGAINST THEM?

That, Donald, is the question that must confront every elected representative, every judge, every prosecutor, every sheriff, and every governmental employee.

And it must confront the President as well.

I am not asking you to grant the American people their sovereignty.

They already possess it.

I am not asking you to grant them freedom.

Freedom is not a governmental gift.

Nor am I asking you to expand the powers of your office to accomplish what the Constitution has not authorized.

I am asking you to honor the limitations of that office and to exercise its lawful powers in a manner that promotes accountability throughout the executive branch.

And I am asking you to encourage the states, the counties, and the American people to exercise their own lawful responsibilities toward the same end.

Because we will never restore the American Republic merely by electing another President.

We will restore it when the people understand that they are responsible for the preservation of their freedom, and when those entrusted with governmental authority understand that they are servants, not masters.

THE PEOPLE GOVERN THEMSELVES.

REPRESENTATIVES GOVERN GOVERNMENT.

JUSTICE ADDRESSES THE VIOLATION OF RIGHTS.

And that justice must extend to every American, without regard to wealth, prominence, political affiliation, or position.

Donald, I want to thank you for your time.

And I appreciate the deference you have shown to the sovereign position of the American people throughout our conversations.

And should you ever wish to discuss the practical restoration of constitutional accountability, the principles advanced through ConstitutionalCounty.org, or the responsibility of public servants to remain within their delegated authority, please let me know.

The people are not here to petition you for the privilege of being free.

We are here to uphold the constitutional Republic that our forefathers entrusted to us.

And we welcome every public servant who is prepared to honor that responsibility.

What gives a Supreme Court Justice the authority to reach across the Atlantic Ocean, resurrect an English tax on wealthy households, and use that history to defend an entirely different American system of taxation?

Justice Benjamin Cardozo did precisely that in 1937.

In Steward Machine Company v. Davis, Cardozo defended the federal unemployment tax imposed under the Social Security Act.

And among the historical examples he invoked was an English tax dating to 1777.

But what was that English tax?

It was a tax on the luxury of employing male servants.

Think about that.

Wealthy English households employed footmen, coachmen, butlers, and other male domestic servants. Parliament taxed the people who could afford these luxuries.

The servants themselves were not the taxpayers under that law.

The footman was not taxed for being a footman. The butler was not taxed for earning his livelihood. The wealthy household paid for maintaining domestic servants.

This was not a universal tax on employment. It was not a tax on every working man. It was not a tax on the ordinary business of earning a living.

It was a selective tax on a particular luxury associated with wealth.

Now consider what Cardozo did with that history.

He invoked this narrow English example while defending a federal tax measured by the wages paid by American employers.

And he reached back to Virginia, where a 1780 tax measure likewise included certain male servants among its taxable subjects.

Neither historical example established a general American constitutional power to tax every employment relationship.

But Cardozo’s judicial reach did not end there.

“On that same day, Cardozo also upheld the federal old-age benefits program in Helvering v. Davis, while the Court separately sustained the taxes imposed on employers and employees. What began as a historical comparison involving wealthy households became part of a broader judicial defense of federal taxation affecting ordinary Americans.”

Two decisions. Two different tax arrangements. One extraordinary expansion of federally approved taxation.

And that brings us to the Liberty Dialogues examination of judicial power.

BREACH. DRIFT. ENCROACHMENT. ENTRENCHMENT.

BREACH: When a historical example is treated as though it establishes constitutional authority it does not itself establish.

DRIFT: The movement from a luxury tax on wealthy households to a federal tax affecting ordinary commercial employment.

ENCROACHMENT: The expansion of federal taxation into economic relationships far beyond the particular circumstances of those historical examples.

ENTRENCHMENT: The Supreme Court’s decisions give that broader exercise of federal power the force of constitutional precedent.

And what makes this so extraordinary is the presumption beneath it.

Since when does an English Parliament define the limits of the American Constitution?

Since when does a tax on a wealthy man’s footman establish the constitutional legitimacy of a federal employment-tax system?

And since when does a Virginia tax from 1780 justify an entirely different national scheme?

Cardozo was not writing legislation. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court, entrusted with judging whether Congress had acted within its constitutional authority.

The historical examples he cited could illustrate how governments once taxed particular relationships.

They could not, by themselves, supply constitutional authority to tax entirely different relationships.

And that is the issue.

A historical analogy is not a constitutional delegation of power.

An English statute is not an American constitutional amendment.

And judicial approval is not a substitute for demonstrating the constitutional source and limits of governmental authority.

The question Cardozo should have answered is simple:

Where does the Constitution authorize the particular federal power being exercised?

Not where England taxed a wealthy man’s servant.

Not where Virginia once taxed a particular household arrangement.

But where the American people delegated the power in question to their federal government.

That is the question every exercise of federal authority must survive.

And no amount of judicial prestige can transform a weak historical analogy into a grant of constitutional power.

PRESUMPTION, MORAL DEPRAVITY, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF DISCERNMENT

I recently produced a video examining the Seven Deadly Sins.

Pride. Greed. Lust. Envy. Gluttony. Wrath. And slothfulness.

I invited Americans to consider how these destructive human characteristics manifest themselves in our institutions, our government, and particularly in the conduct of political parties.

I questioned how the Democratic Party of today compares with the principles once represented by John F. Kennedy.

Someone responded by asking me to remove their contact information because, apparently, my observations suggested that I had aligned myself with someone they considered untrustworthy.

Interesting.

But I have a question.

WHAT EXACTLY DID I SAY THAT WAS UNTRUE?

What proposition did I advance that was incorrect?

What evidence did I present that was false?

And what principle did I violate?

None of those questions was addressed.

Instead, a presumption concerning my supposed political allegiance became the basis for a judgment about my trustworthiness.

And therein lies the very problem I have dedicated my work to exposing.

PRESUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE.

OPINION IS NOT KNOWLEDGE.

AND JUDGMENT WITHOUT DISCERNMENT IS NOT WISDOM.

Let me make something perfectly clear.

I am not interested in promoting political parties.

I have never aligned myself with a political party or candidate in my videos.

Politics is not my mission.

It makes no sense to devote my efforts to the political theater of Republicans against Democrats when the underlying problem is far more fundamental.

My objective is to teach people how to think.

How to recognize presumptions.

How to challenge propositions that have no evidentiary foundation.

How to distinguish lawful authority from the mere assertion of authority.

And, most importantly, HOW TO DEFEAT UNLAWFUL EXERCISES OF POWER.

That is the purpose of the Liberty Dialogues.

Not to decide which political party should govern Americans.

But to examine whether government itself is operating within its lawful authority.

Now, consider the consequences when government abandons that responsibility.

Consider immigration.

I have criticized Democratic immigration policies that, in my judgment, permitted the entry or release of large numbers of people without adequate regard for the consequences of those decisions.

But the question is not whether an immigrant is a Democrat or Republican.

Nor should anyone presume that an immigrant is a criminal.

The question is whether governmental officials exercised their authority lawfully and responsibly.

When a person with a documented history of serious violent crime is released into a community and subsequently rapes, murders, assaults, or molests another innocent person, we must ask:

WHO AUTHORIZED THAT RELEASE?

What did the responsible officials know?

What law governed their decision?

What risks were identified?

And were their lawful obligations fulfilled?

We are not discussing an abstract political disagreement.

We are discussing a woman whose life has been devastated by rape.

A child who has suffered abuse.

A husband who has lost his wife.

Parents who have buried their daughter.

A family whose life will never be the same.

And I want to know by what authority governmental officials may disregard foreseeable threats to innocent people.

Consider the fentanyl crisis.

Families across America have suffered the devastating consequences of drugs trafficked through international criminal networks and distributed throughout our communities.

We should examine the border, the ports of entry, the trafficking networks, and every enforcement failure.

Not through political slogans.

THROUGH EVIDENCE.

Because the life of a child lost to fentanyl is not a Republican issue.

It is not a Democratic issue.

IT IS A HUMAN TRAGEDY.

And the protection of innocent human life is a moral responsibility.

This is why I condemn policies and governmental decisions that I believe have subordinated the rights of peaceful people to political objectives.

I have been especially critical of the direction of today’s Democratic Party.

I believe that many of its policies represent a profound departure from the constitutional principles I associate with the American Republic.

That is my judgment.

And I invite anyone who disagrees to examine the policies, the actual decisions, the governing law, and their consequences.

But my criticism does not make me a Republican.

And criticizing Republicans does not make me a Democrat.

MY STANDARD IS NOT PARTY.

MY STANDARD IS PRINCIPLE.

And those principles apply equally to the United States and to governments throughout the world.

This brings us directly to the Liberty Dialog System.

We examine AUTHORITY.

We examine JURISDICTION.

We examine STATUS.

We examine STANDING.

We examine OBLIGATION.

And we examine ENFORCEMENT.

We ask government to establish the authority it claims to possess.

We examine the boundaries of that authority.

We identify the rights of the people affected.

We determine the obligations that government has undertaken.

And we challenge enforcement that exceeds lawful authority.

Think about the Seven Deadly Sins.

What is pride if not the presumption that one’s own judgment stands above examination?

What is wrath if not the willingness to condemn another without discerning the truth?

What is greed if not the willingness to sacrifice the interests of others for personal advantage?

And what is slothfulness if not the intellectual and moral laziness that refuses to examine the facts before arriving at a conclusion?

These are not exclusively Democratic characteristics.

They are not exclusively Republican characteristics.

THEY ARE HUMAN FAILINGS.

And they become especially dangerous when joined with governmental power.

That is why I insist upon examining the exercise of authority rather than defending the people who exercise it.

I do not care whether an official calls himself a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, or anything else.

SHOW ME YOUR AUTHORITY.

Show me the law.

Show me your jurisdiction.

Show me the obligation you are authorized to enforce.

And show me how your conduct dignifies the life, liberty, and property of the people.

If I make an incorrect assertion, demonstrate the error.

If my evidence is insufficient, identify what is missing.

And if my conclusions are wrong, I should have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge it.

But do not substitute a presumption about my political allegiance for an examination of the proposition I have advanced.

That is precisely the intellectual failure the Liberty Dialogues seeks to overcome.

The American Republic was not established so that political parties could exercise unlimited authority over the people.

Its Constitution establishes a government of limited powers.

Its Bill of Rights restrains governmental interference with fundamental freedoms.

And its founding principles recognize rights that do not originate in government.

THE PEOPLE GOVERN THEMSELVES.

REPRESENTATIVES GOVERN GOVERNMENT.

AND JUSTICE PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF ALL.

So when I question a political party, do not presume that I am promoting another.

When I condemn governmental conduct, do not presume that I have embraced a political ideology.

And when I challenge authority, do not confuse that challenge with allegiance to anyone.

My allegiance is to truth, discernment, natural rights, and the principles of lawful government.

My objective is not to win a political argument.

MY OBJECTIVE IS TO TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND DEFEAT UNLAWFUL AUTHORITY.

Because without discernment, presumption becomes accepted as truth.

Without accountability, power becomes increasingly difficult to restrain.

And without the courage to question authority, liberty becomes little more than a promise.

PRESUMPTION REQUIRES NOTHING.

DISCERNMENT REQUIRES THOUGHT.

AND LIBERTY REQUIRES THE COURAGE TO DEFEND WHAT IS RIGHT.

That is the Liberty Dialogues.

And that is the work to which I am committed.

thelibertydialogues.com

If you voted in today’s election, I have one very simple question.

Of all the candidates you voted for, which one possesses the intelligence, the discernment, the integrity, and the courage to restore the American Republic to its constitutional foundations?

Which one?

Which candidate understands that the American people are sovereign, that their natural rights are not privileges granted by government, and that elected representatives are supposed to govern government—not the American people?

CAN YOU NAME ONE?

And if you cannot, I have another question.

WHY DID YOU VOTE?

For generations, Americans have elected Republicans and Democrats, hoping that someone in Washington would restore the freedoms our Founders intended to secure.

Yet the fundamental problem remains.

We keep changing the people in government without restoring the constitutional limitations upon government itself.

The American Republic was never intended to depend upon finding the perfect politician.

It was designed to restrain imperfect human beings entrusted with limited governmental authority.

And that brings us to the solution.

THE PEOPLE GOVERN THEMSELVES.

REPRESENTATIVES GOVERN GOVERNMENT.

THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THEIR AUTHORITY.

If you genuinely want to restore the American Republic, I invite you to examine a solution that begins with the people—not another political promise from Washington.

ConstitutionalCounty.org.

Because restoring our Republic requires more than another election.

IT REQUIRES RESTORING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE… DRINK SOME WATER!

In 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts became lightheaded, fell, and injured his forehead.

His doctors attributed the incident to DEHYDRATION!

Now, we all know that without sufficient water, the human body becomes dehydrated. And without water long enough, a man will die.

But consider the irony.

Here is a Chief Justice who helped decide whether Congress could compel Americans to purchase health insurance.

Roberts acknowledged that Congress lacked that authority under the Commerce Clause.

But rather than let the legislation fail, he found another way to save it.

IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE!

He transformed a penalty into a tax!

Perhaps Roberts wasn’t merely dehydrated. Perhaps he was running low on CONSTITUTIONAL JUICE!

And perhaps Congress should stop trying to compel Americans to purchase health insurance until the Supreme Court justices learn to drink from the Constitution!

Because the lesson is simple:

WITHOUT WATER, THE HUMAN BODY DIES.

WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL FIDELITY, THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC DIES.

And if Chief Justice Roberts needs to replenish his constitutional judgment, I suggest he begin—

BY READING THE CONSTITUTION!

And as always, may truth reign supreme.