One of our great cultural problems today is that Christians do not understand civics. And by civics, I do not mean the “how a bill becomes a law” kind of civics, but rather I refer to our very common misunderstanding of the true nature of our appointed government. We have a particular form of government de jure, laid out for us in the Constitution, and we have another, very different, form of government, de facto, sitting atop Lady Liberty, strangling her to death.
Too many Christians, not wanting trouble, just blithely assume that whatever the Feds are doing is “more or less” in accord with the Constitution. There may be encroachments here or there, they think, but in the main things are okay. They further believe that our duty outlined for us in Romans 13 requires us not to look too closely at it.
Actually, it is the reverse. Our responsibility is found in Romans 13, but it requires us to look at this far more closely than we are accustomed to do.
It is not the case that the Federal government simply outranks local officials, the way (we think) a king outranks a duke. In a government of law, the king outranks all others in his appointed duties, and a duke outranks all others in his appointed duties. This is how separation of powers works.
“But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men: And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God” (2 Chron. 26:16–18).
So, simple question. Does a king outrank a priest? The blunt answer is that no, he does not. The law of Israel overarches them both, and tells the king what to do, and what he may not do, and tells the priest what he may do, and not do. These valiant priests who resisted the will of a conceited king were fully within their lawful right to do so. Uzziah was breaking the law, and the priests were not breaking the law by resisting him.In our system, the supreme law of the land is the Constitution. And that Constitution, in what is called the “supremacy clause,” spells out for us what constitutes the supreme law of the land. It is the Constitution itself, laws that are made in accord with the Constitution, and treaties contracted by the government of the United States. That’s it. The Constitution, constitutional laws, and (constitutional) treaties.
Now our Constitution was written down so that everybody could read it. If the powers that be one day simply announced that Massachusetts should have three senators now, and Nevada should give up one, we can all still read, which means that we would know that this, as constitutional lawyers from another era would have said, was “not right.” And if the Supreme Court upheld the travesty, the historical fact of Marbury v. Madison would not alter the plain meaning of the words. The supreme law of the land says that Nevada gets two, and everybody who insisted that the new meaning was the legal meaning would be a lawbreaker. All such people would be in violation of Romans 13.
Go back to the earlier example. Uzziah was the king, and he was the one violating Romans 13. The priests were not the king, but they were defending the law that the king was attacking.
This is not a hypothetical situation, for we are currently living under a regime that is functioning in precisely the ways that our Constitution prohibits. Only Congress has the right to enact binding laws. And Congress is prohibited from delegating its own “rule-making” authority to other agencies, such as the IRS and the EPA. Moreover, such agencies, located as they are under the executive branch, by taking up such legislative authority, manifest a gross disregard of the law. In other words, when it comes to constitutional infractions, we are living under examples that are every bit as absurd as the example given above. And such things don’t cease to be constitutionally absurd just because a lot of people have gotten used to it. That third senator from Massachusetts might be on his third term now.
Issues just like this were the issues of the American War for Independence. The Americans resisted taxes levied by Parliament because taxes placed on the American people were illegal. In that conflict, the Americans were not disobeying the constitution of England, Parliament was. If you live in Virginia, and receive a tax bill in the mail from a county judge in Montana, you have every right to wad it up and throw it away. You are not breaking the law — he is.
Now if you are being mugged in an alley, it is not a sin to hand over your wallet. It is not a sin to be stolen from. But handing over your wallet is not an acknowledgment on your part that the thieves have a right to your wallet. You are being coerced. But suppose you had twenty bucks in that wallet and a thousand dollars in your boot. Are you conscience-bound to tell the thieves about the money in your boot? No, because they are the thieves. Thieves don’t have a right to that information, because they have no lawful right to the money. You might decide to tell them, if you thought that they were going to find it anyway, and that they would then kill you. But at that point you are doing de facto cost/benefit analysis. You are measuring risks, not analyzing rights.
In the same way, and making this very practical, if all your paychecks come to you from businesses and/or employers who report to the IRS, then it would be stupid for you to go on a quixotic crusade against the IRS. You are wired into the system, and they already know about the money in your boot. But say you are cleaning out the attic one day and find $5000 that your grandmother tucked into a shoebox without telling anybody. You were her sole heir — you own that shoebox in other words, and everything in it. You have every moral right to that money. Are you obligated to report that money on your taxes? Are you conscience-bound to treat it as taxable income?
No, of course not. And if pressed for biblical justification of this position, I would appeal to Romans 13.
Me likes this post.
Amen.
You lost me in the last paragraph. The law does not provide that the $5,000 is taxable income, and so there is no need to report it – regardless of what your conscience tells you to do. Rather, the law generally provides that assets transferring to another at death (or gifted within a certain time prior to death) are subject to federal and state death taxes. In other words, they are subject to transfer taxes but not income taxes. Are you suggesting that assets that are subject to transfer taxes can simply be hidden and not reported? Don’t get me… Read more »
I don’t find the application compelling.
The world thinks that all we care about is money and power. If it comes out that I’ve been evading taxes, then my witness is compromised, and my protestations about the PRINCIPLE of the thing will not sway public sentiment.
I want to reserve violations of those that perceive themselves as my authority to the times when would not look like an excuse for petty greed.
Eric, why does it look like greed when I keep my money, but it doesn’t look like greed when they take it?
Pastor Wilson,
It certainly looks like greed when they take it. But I would rather have them look like the greedy party.
Doug, what federal taxes are constitutional? How should legitimate federal expenses be paid?
Few Christians understand civics and even fewer Christians have an understanding of civics that extends prior to 1776 or across the ocean. The US Constitution is an egg that cannot be unfried. It would behoove us to assess the US political situation as it stands and not as it should have been and to look for historical models to indicate where we are headed next.
An interesting intersection arises for those of us who are US expats. I was born in the US to Canadian parents, but have lived in Canada since I was 1.5 years old (I’m in my late forties now). I have only recently found out that the US considers me a citizen, and not only a citizen, but a citizen who has not been filing taxes (I’ve never even had a SSN) and reporting my “foreign” (i.e. local bank down the street from me) accounts like apparently I should have been. All of which was news to me. I mean, why… Read more »
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. That’s from the Constitution, you old retrograde ass. And “the Congress” exercised this power in the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. Read it. Your political theories come from the same crackpot fever-swamp as those theories regarding jet fuel and steel beams. You are saying, essentially, that tax evasion is no sin as long as you can get away with it. But make no mistake, if you are caught, they’ll… Read more »
Man, I feel so validated! Not long ago I was thinking through some of these things, and came to the conclusion that when the President was using his pen and his phone, and Congress was failing to stand up to him, that they were the ones violating Romans 13, not me just because I object.
Now, what do we do about it?
Phillip,
Fever swamps? Philip Hamburger teaches at Columbia Law, and his book on this is published by the University of Chicago Press. Try again.
Congress does not have the authority to rid itself of its constitutional responsibilities, and certainly has no authority to vest that authority somewhere in the executive branch. Why? Because it is against the law.
Tom Gee,
FWIW, having lived in Canada for a couple years and gone through this….you probably do not have to PAY taxes: since you are exempted from taxes you’ve already paid in another country. But you do have to FILE (“have to” in the sense that the IRS expects it) and show the money is exempted). Still galling.
Okay, so you’re not claiming that the Internal Revenue Code is itself unconstitutional, since that would be absurd in light of the Sixteenth Amendment. What you’re saying is unlawful is the IRS being tasked with enforcing it. So when the Constitution says that the Executive “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, what, exactly, does this mean vis-a-vis the Internal Revenue Code? If the IRS doesn’t have the power to actually collect the taxes authorized by Constitution and statute, who does?
Oh, and a lot of people teach at Columbia, not all of whom are worth listening to.
Mr. A, Well then, if not Columbia, then how about: “The Constitution does not vest the Federal Government with an undifferentiated “governmental power.” Instead, the Constitution identifies three types of governmental power and, in the Vesting Clauses, commits them to three branches of Government. Those Clauses provide that“[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” Art. I, §1, “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States,” Art. II, §1, cl. 1, and “[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in… Read more »
@Barnabas wrote:
God can unfry eggs and that “If my people who are called by my name will…” verse still applies.
Also, the Article V convention of the states project is gaining steam and could provide a long-term tool to reign in Leviathan.
Also, I just have a sense of calm as events unfold. They are unfolding as God has shown us in scripture and there is real peace in that.
Mr. Philip A. Following your link, after drilling down a bit, I got here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/9833 Where I read this: The Secretary, consistent with section 104 of the Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The Secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the Secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this chapter. Which is an example of the very point that the retrograde old ass made here: This is not a hypothetical situation, for we are currently living under a… Read more »
timothy, Article V could be problematic. Federalist 49: “keeping the several departments of power within their constitutional limits,” and “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”… Read more »
As always I agree with the overarching conclusions here. I think Doug should specify which exact part of the tax process he finds to be unconstitutional or illegal (maybe he doesn’t do this to avoid making evidence against himself in a later prosecution). The two I have seen him lay out are: (1) The promulgation of regulation by the executive (this post) (2) The tax rate being illegally high, because it surpasses the tithe percent, and is thus theft (previous post) I agree with Doug in point two, but not in point one, at least in regard to the tax… Read more »
Hi @RFB Article V has a couple of methods, the one Mark Levin is pushing is this one: The Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, There is ample history of states using this process prior to the war of northern aggression, so there is historical precedent as to how it works. Basically, the current Federal Government has zero say in the process. The states meet among themselves and propose amendments (again,… Read more »
timothy: The Secretary, consistent with section 104 of the Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The Secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the Secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this chapter. It seems you missed a clause in your reading. The Secretary (in this context of Health and Human Services) may only promulgate regulations incidental to the enforcement of the statute, specifically the section dealing with requirements for group health plans. The Secretary does not have the… Read more »
Mr. Taylor, In my reading of Pastor Wilson, I do not see him directly arguing against the “promulgation of regulation by the executive”. What I understand him to be objecting to would be what used to be “mission creep” that could now be labeled “mission sprint”. In this characterization, it appears the Professor Hamburger, Justice Thomas, and Professor Tribe share some similar sentiments. Hamburger and Thomas are aforementioned; here is Tribe speaking to Congress: “EPA possesses only the authority granted to it by Congress,…Its gambit here raises serious questions under the separation of powers…because EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking… Read more »
@Philip A. I am not a lawyer, so I will not argue that, and let’s ignore the IRS targeting tea-party groups. Take the case of the EPA in effect banning new wood stoves with their regulations (I assume the relationship of the EPA to Congress is the same as that of the IRS to Congress). Take the case of the FCC with the net-neutrality laws that nobody has read. @RFB has raised another example. Are they not examples of what pastor Wilson has described? Also, please answer my questions. Are you a Christian and do you recognize a law that… Read more »
I can’t know this for sure (unless Doug confirms it), but I imagine Doug may well have gotten a good chuckle out of being called an “old retrograde ass”. That kind of stylistic name-calling is pretty much high praise in the internet world…
timothy: The FCC and the EPA are regulatory agencies, unlike the IRS. Yes, in those cases, Congress has given the general regulatory framework, and left it to these agencies to fill in the details. So, I guess you could argue that regulatory agencies are creating a sort of law, although technically they are simply defining certain terms used in the statute. Now, according to current Supreme Court jurisprudence, Congress is constitutionally allowed to do this. This is not to say that Congress can pass a law that says, for example All US citizens shall do whatever the EPA says. Anyone… Read more »
Mr. A,
Funny how people read different things. I re-read Pastor Wilson’s post and could not find “cargo-cult legal theories spouted by “sovereign citizen” tax protestor types…or “actually the IRS has no authority over me”.
Doug, what’s the highest percentage the IRS can tax you on your income before you’d consider it theft? And of course you understand that you have to put an actual number to it, not just say “whatever is reasonable” or something like that. Also, if someone else believes it to be a lower number than you do, can you say for certain that that person is not submitting properly to civil authority? If so, I’m assuming you have a logically airtight argument for that particular number. Finally, what if some like-minded people formed a community and decided to stop using… Read more »
Mr. RFB – I appreciate your summation. If this is all Doug is saying then I heartily agree. But it is not as clear to me that Doug said this in his post, which is why I asked for clarity. The reason I ask for clarity is because there are tax cheats out there that latch onto these kinds of arguments to justify their fraud. The “I don’t have to pay taxes because I am a freehold citizen of North America” types. We need to get as far away from these people as possible. What I think we should do… Read more »
Mr. Taylor,
I (obviously) am not Pastor Wilson. Nonetheless, I have personally heard him draw a deliberate distinction (with a difference) between lawful good citizenship (including the paying of taxes) and anarchical actions.
Thank you for your reasonable reply.
“This all according to a century of Supreme Court precedent. Now you and Doug Wilson may argue that the Supreme Court is full of
it, as does Philip Hamburger, but it’s the Supreme Court’s word that tends to be final.”
The Supreme Circus upheld the Fugitive Slave Act. Their word was unquestionably final. And then Abolitionists nullified it.
http://www.constitution.org/jury/pj/fija_history.html
Or you can continue being good Conservatives, lamenting the inevitable decline with dignity. At least you played nice.
One question… where does the leper come in?
Gerv
Hi @Robert A.
I have asked you twice, please answer.
1. Are you a Christian?
2. Do you think there is a higher law than the laws of men?
The reason I ask is that your answer will help us frame the debate. If 1. is ‘yes’, then 2. follows and we can add a theological discussion to this (hearty and most welcome) debate.
If 1. is ‘no’ then we can tailor the debate accordingly.
@Ty Taylor – I appreciate your summation, which pretty much expresses my own overarching views on the topic.
All of you on here who are trying to skewer Doug on this or that particular are missing the point. You are focusing on various minutia b/c you either don’t like or don’t understand the overarching principle that those who hold government offices are subject to the limits of their powers set out in the federal and state constitutions. When they act outside of those bounds, it cannot be justified by the mere fact that they hold office. Holding office is a foundation for exercising *particular,* authority (delegated and enumerated powers). If they exercise “authority” that is not enumerated by… Read more »
@ Matt I agree with you. It really doesn’t matter whether Doug is right or not (in our minds) on $5000 in an old shoe box being taxable income or not. The issue at hand is this: When we all come to the conclusion that whatever is currently being done is truly unconstitutional, what are we going to do about it? Doug is lifting a mighty big rock and all the Lazy Pragmatic Pacifist Romans 13 Creepy Crawlers are squirming. It may be the most importantly misunderstood text of our generation, and I was numbered among them who misunderstood prior… Read more »