Analyzing Case Law

[indago]

And then there is the post by Lawdog, who posted:
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be 'direct taxes' within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes 'from whatever source derived.'" Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
------------------------------------------------------------

He left out where this abortion supposedly came from. I, then, posted:
------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you put the whole quote on there: "The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes 'from whatever source derived.' Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17"

And that wasn't what was written in Brushaber at all. Mr. Brushaber was a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and he filed the lawsuit to try to stop the company from paying the new "income tax" because if they did his dividends would be reduced.

The Solicitor General for the government, in an amicus curiae brief, had made the argument: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed the restriction of apportionment as to such income taxes as before were subject thereto." The Court, in their opinion, in which there was no dissent, and noting this "confusion", declared this to be an "erroneous assumption" on the part of the government, and "wholly without foundation". The Court declared that "it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"; and that the amendment simply prohibited the income tax from being taken from the category of indirect taxation, and being placed into the category of a direct tax.

It was also explained that the Congress of the United States had no intention of destroying the two great classes of taxation by the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, but placed an income tax into the category of taxation in which it inherently belonged; the indirect class, or excise, and because the tax is not apportioned, nor subject to the census or enumeration, it is an excise tax, a tax upon the exercise of privileges, such taxes not being subject to the condition of apportionment to the States.

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...
------------------------------------------------------------


"I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary." — Chief Justice John Marhsall

[robhalford88]

Ok, lets cut to the chase.
The deal is Stare Decisis.
You need to be able to distinguish between Obiter Dicta and Ratio Decidendii.

Use the Ratio as was already said, use the reasons.

Google those terms and make up your own minds.

[Shoonra]

(1) It has frequently happened that the US Supreme Court (and, I suppose, lesser courts as well) repeated the words from a brief if appropriate to the decision.

(2) Stare Decisis {"to stay with things decided"} is not a hard and fast rule. It applies when the situation and the law are the same as a previous decision. Part of the legal reasoning is showing that the current case is either the same or different from the previous case. The US Supreme Court has said that it is not bound by its own previous decisions; and it has frequently found reason to overturn previous decisions.

(3) Obiter Dicta is, essentially, something said in passing and, as such, it has little or no legal weight. It sometimes is hard to tell when some comment is dicta and occasionally lawyers are told that they've built their arguments on dicta and therefore have relied on very weak support. Dicta sometimes describes how the outcome might be different if the situation were different, but, as that is not the situation in the case being decided, there is no assurance that what was described would really happen in the imagined situation.

Justice Renquist was notorious for building new decisions on what had been thought to be dicta in old decisions.


(4) Ratio decendi {"the reason for the decision"} is, in essence, the court's explanation of its interpretation of the law in this case. It is, therefore, the opposite (in authority) of the obiter dicta. However, it is not always easy to figure out the ratio decendi from reading a court decision. The ration decendi is the crucial part of the outcome of the case, and provides whatever precedent is given weight using stare decisis.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(1) It has frequently happened that the US Supreme Court (and, I suppose, lesser courts as well) repeated the words from a brief if appropriate to the decision.

(2) Stare Decisis {"to stay with things decided"} is not a hard and fast rule. It applies when the situation and the law are the same as a previous decision. Part of the legal reasoning is showing that the current case is either the same or different from the previous case. The US Supreme Court has said that it is not bound by its own previous decisions; and it has frequently found reason to overturn previous decisions.

(3) Obiter Dicta is, essentially, something said in passing and, as such, it has little or no legal weight. It sometimes is hard to tell when some comment is dicta and occasionally lawyers are told that they've built their arguments on dicta and therefore have relied on very weak support. Dicta sometimes describes how the outcome might be different if the situation were different, but, as that is not the situation in the case being decided, there is no assurance that what was described would really happen in the imagined situation.

Justice Renquist was notorious for building new decisions on what had been thought to be dicta in old decisions.


(4) Ratio decendi {"the reason for the decision"} is, in essence, the court's explanation of its interpretation of the law in this case. It is, therefore, the opposite (in authority) of the obiter dicta. However, it is not always easy to figure out the ratio decendi from reading a court decision. The ration decendi is the crucial part of the outcome of the case, and provides whatever precedent is given weight using stare decisis.

Nonsensical, frivolous "legal" gibberish.

This is BAR Association propaganda.

Is there not a bit of a difference between "to stay with things decided" and "to stand by that which is decided?"

Who wants to volunteer into a slave market brothel funded by a casino?

"Stare decisis" as collusively "practiced" by private monopoly trade guild BAR Association bastard attorneys, both "at" "law," "legislating" from the "bench" and/or "en banc" to lure targeted victims into their web of deceit is an ******uous abomination.

Stare decisis in the republic, properly is "...this Constitution for the United States of America," and "to stand by that which is decided," is stipulated, in no uncertain terms by bond of oath.

The rest is private BAR Association house of cards.



Grifter flim-flam.

Carpetbaggers and Scalawags.

Show me the terms "lawyer," and "attorney" in "...this Constitution for the United States of America."

There is an inherent and ******uous conflict of interest in private monopoly trade guild BAR Association casino funded slave market brothels, in that there is collusion and conflict of interest in so many ways, stemming from unlawful (Taft Hartley, et al) private trade guild BAR Association syndicated criminal racketeering enterprise of persuading manhunters to snatch people off the street, and "enforcing" fraudulent ex post facto legislative bills of attainder, (legislators enact a bill of attainder ex post facto law and deny that it is a bill of attainder ex post facto law), under color of law.

This is reprehensible treason, and, if we are to put "...this Constitution for the United States of America" to good use must be stamped out as "the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored," if need be.