Paying Taxes is Voluntary!

[joerockhead]

R7mRSI8yWwg

[Krasch]

Typical left wing mentality, and of course all monies received through taxes are the government's money/

Oh no, it's not OUR money they take from us, it's really their money.

/sarcasm off;

[ddoubleez]

Income tax is unconstitutional.... It is a direct tax... The supreme court has even said so... The only reason that the IRS is able to continue to operate is that they have guns and pocketbooks that will bankrupt anyone who tries to oppose them.

There is no statute that makes a person liable or responsible to pay the income tax. Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they voluntarily file a tax return, or when the IRS follows its assessment procedures as outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.

If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally.

[michaeljohn]

On topic with a little twist. I don't have all of the details, I just remember from what a friend that did it told me. You can keep the IRS away for good, legally. Essentially, you do this, and what happens:

1) Resign your Unitied States Citizenship and become a Sovereign Citizen of the state you reside in.
2) You must immediately request a refund for all income taxes you paid in the last 3(?) years or so. If you don't do it, you are saying the IRS can tax you.
3) Your Social Security number becomes 000-00-0000. It must be accepted by institutions that require a SS number from you; banks, DMV, etc.
4) You will never have Federal Income or Social Security taxes withheld from your pay again. Self emplyoyed? Probably don't have to file a return. Corporations? I don't know.
5) You can never receive Federal aid of any kind. State aid? I don't recall. Pay state taxes? I don't know. Sales tax? I don't know.

I am sure there is more information about all of this. The group/organization my friend was involved with was called "The Patriots".

[derkuppler]

Non-US citizens working in the United States are taxed the same way as US citizens.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96493,00.html

[derkuppler]

Regardless, Harry Reid is either a liar or a moron. Maybe both. If he believes what he is saying about our tax system being voluntary, he's an idiot. If he doesn't, then he's a liar. Or, maybe he knows that many of his friends and colleagues are not paying their taxes and he thinks that taxes are voluntary as a result.

[ddoubleez]

Regardless, Harry Reid is either a liar or a moron. Maybe both. If he believes what he is saying about our tax system being voluntary, he's an idiot. If he doesn't, then he's a liar. Or, maybe he knows that many of his friends and colleagues are not paying their taxes and he thinks that taxes are voluntary as a result.


I will tell you it is sad when folks like this have the wealth they do and tell us that they want to make a difference, but do not even pay the amount expected to run the operation.... BUT, non the less, it does not change the fact that it is unconstitutional to force someone to pay a direct tax that is not equally portioned to the public, so he is indeed correct.. This is one of many reasons that ron paul was going to disolve the income tax..

[thecowboy]

Income tax is unconstitutional.... It is a direct tax... The supreme court has even said so... The only reason that the IRS is able to continue to operate is that they have guns and pocketbooks that will bankrupt anyone who tries to oppose them.

There is no statute that makes a person liable or responsible to pay the income tax. Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they voluntarily file a tax return, or when the IRS follows its assessment procedures as outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.

If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally.


You're kidding me, right?

First, the SC said a long assed time ago that a national income tax may be unconstitutional as a direct tax, but resolved the dispute on other grounds and elected not to decide the issue one way or another. Given the SC's progeny on direct taxes, they likely would have called it constitutional. No, I don't wish to discuss the direct tax progeny. There hasn't been a case directly on the clause since the early 1800's. Uniformity on the other hand...

Second, no statute authorizes income taxation? How about the Constitution? I.e., the 16th amendment. It's purpose was to authorize income taxation in response to the SC's statement in the case I mentioned in the first point. Just in case.

Third, if you're talking about a statute enforcing the 16th amendment right of the federal government to tax your income, I've got the damned Internal Revenue Code sitting right next to me. 10,000 pages worth of bullshit statutes authorizing the taxation of your income pursuant to the 16th amendment.



I don't like income taxation either. I think there are better ways to raise revenue, but arguing that the gov doesn't have the authority to do it is like saying they don't have the authority to throw your ass in jail for murder. Makes no sense whatsoever.


True, there is no statute that says you have to file an income tax return, but the stats do provide that you have to pay taxes. That’s what they’ll haul you in jail for. True also that you don’t have to give the government information that you could be prosecuted criminally for. Makes it a lot easier though. By all means, don’t pay your taxes, and don’t give the information. When you’re hauled in front of federal court on criminal tax evasion it won’t be voluntarily given anymore, they’ll take it. Legally.

The other option to a voluntary income tax return is to require the IRS (or similar taxing authority) to basically audit and make a tax assessment for every single person, whether they have income for the year or not (don't forget income is comprised of a hell of a lot more than wages), calculate all deductions on their own, ... , I could go on and on. The much more practical way to do it is to have a system like we have where you can send in your return, and for the most part, you don't have to deal with it until next year.

It is not a voluntary tax, it is a voluntary return, for no other reason than administrative simplicity. Not to mention the savings to the taxpayer. If you think the bill is high now for income collection, imagine the cost of the procedure outlined in the preceding paragraph...

[thecowboy]

Just for shits and giggles, I've copied and pasted the first section of the tax code (IRC section 1). So, there 1. is in fact a statute that makes a person liable or responsible for the income tax, 2. You are definitely liable whether or not you voluntarily file an income tax return or the taxing authorities come after you. Your statement is like saying you're not liable for murder until the cops come after you. Think.

§ 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $29,600 15% of taxable income.
Over $29,600 but not over $76,400 $4,440, plus 28% of the excess over $29,600.
Over $76,400 but not over $127,500 $17,544, plus 31% of the excess over $76,400.
Over $127,500 but not over $250,000 $33,385, plus 36% of the excess over $127,500.
Over $250,000 $77,485, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $18,450 15% of taxable income.
Over $18,450 but not over $44,575 $2,767.50, plus 28% of the excess over $18,450.
Over $44,575 but not over $70,000 $10,082.50, plus 31% of the excess over $44,575.
Over $70,000 but not over $125,000 $17,964.25, plus 36% of the excess over $70,000.
Over $125,000 $37,764.25, plus 39.6% of the excess over $125,000.

[thecowboy]

Just because I'm having so much fun, let's discuss the 16th amendment as well. Here it is:

"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."

Since you seem to be so hung up on the direct taxation point, the "apportionment" language refers directly, and is an exception, to the "apportionment" requirement for direct taxes in the main body. Therefore, even if income taxation is a direct tax, which as previously stated has not been conclusively decided by the SC, the 16th amendment "directly" supersedes the requirement.

Do we need to get into the effect of amendments as well? I mean, since you seem to know so much about the constitution and all, I wouldn't want to offend you or anything, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Ron Paul, by the way, wants to repeal the amendment. He does recognize its effect. Saying that he wants to get rid of income taxation solely because it is a direct tax is a misstatement.

[ddoubleez]

Just because I'm having so much fun, let's discuss the 16th amendment as well. Here it is:

"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."

Since you seem to be so hung up on the direct taxation point, the "apportionment" language refers directly, and is an exception, to the "apportionment" requirement for direct taxes in the main body. Therefore, even if income taxation is a direct tax, which as previously stated has not been conclusively decided by the SC, the 16th amendment "directly" supersedes the requirement.

Do we need to get into the effect of amendments as well? I mean, since you seem to know so much about the constitution and all, I wouldn't want to offend you or anything, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Ron Paul, by the way, wants to repeal the amendment. He does recognize its effect. Saying that he wants to get rid of income taxation solely because it is a direct tax is a misstatement.


It is my understanding that this amendments if refering to a corperate tax.. Correct?

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429,[1] aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601[2] (1895) was an important Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the rule that direct taxes be apportioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

Washington State Supreme Court declares citizen-approved state income tax unconstitutional on September 8, 1933.

On September 8, 1933, the Washington State Supreme Court declares the state’s one-year-old, citizen-approved income tax unconstitutional. Some legal scholars call the reasoning behind the 5-4 decision “tortured” (Roberts). A business-and-occupation tax (which taxes gross receipts of businesses) and a citizen-approved 40-mill (four cent) limit per assessed dollar on property taxes, however, are judged constitutional.


http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=pf_output.cfm&file_id=5726

INCOME TAX LAW DEAD; The Supreme Court Holds It Unconstitutional. A DIVIDED COURT AGAIN This Time the Majority Stands Against the Law. FOUR JUSTICES FILE THEIR PROTEST Justice Jackson Upholds the Law, but Justice Shiras's Views Have Undergone a Change. EFFECT ON THE FUTURE REVENUES The Authorities Take Prompt Measures to Refund the Tax Already Collected.


Cowboy, you maybe right, law and taxes are not my field or intrest, but you can see why many of us are confused on this.... In addition, the SC has a habbit of not hearing anymore arguments on this, correct? Is it because they may find it unconstitutional as they have before....

JZl6202HJGQ

l_sZj8dZnJI&feature=related

Here is an 11 part documentary that spends a little time on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ueEfRXZCVA

[thecowboy]

No it's not referring to a corporate tax.

Do you see the word corporate anywhere in there?




Pollock was a real estate income tax case. To sum up the direct tax progeny of the SC, real property tax is the only type of tax brought to the court that the court has found to be a direct tax. That is why we don't have nationwide real property taxes. Apportionment is too difficult. If I remember right, it was the pollock court that mentioned in dicta that a pure income tax may be a direct tax, but I don't remember exactly. Either way, the court has NEVER said that an income tax is illegal.

As far as the Washington Supreme Court, they can think income taxes are illegal all they want. They are a state supreme court and are subject to the SC's jurisdiction when construing a Constitutional issue. State highest courts are only the highest judicial authority on state law, not federal, and certainly not the constitution.

[thecowboy]

The SC doesn't hear anymore cases on it because the 16th amendment made it a moot issue. Are you going to stand in front of the court and argue that an amendment to the constitution is unconstitutional?

If I seem fired up, I am. It is absolutely ludicrous that you are touting youtube videos to argue that the income tax laws are unconstitutional, then you post that you think the 16th amendment is to apply only to corporate income tax? Do you know what the constitution says? Educate yourself as to the matter before arguing. A mistaken preacher leads to a mistaken flock. Try thinking for yourself instead of believing what youtube videos and Harry Reid. Read the primary documents. Hell, read what you post yourself. The News Report that you posted regarding the Washington Supreme Court case does not stand whatsoever for what you posted it for. The court was construing the Washington State constitution. A wholly different document and body of law than the Federal one. I.E., states are free to tax what they want to tax so long as it doesn't violate the Federal Constitution. If a state doesn't want to tax income, then good for them. It has nothing to do with Federal Taxation.

[MaxZorin]

In my country, they really know how to do laws. Besides the Constitution, we have a special law called the Tax Code that order to any person within the borders of the country to pay taxes for any income, no matter the source, national or foreign, and no matter the reason, donation, gift, working salary, investment, etc. That way, we know how much and why we have to pay.
This is the great thing about having special laws for special issues, for you can leave the Constitution as a main guide to work with the special laws.
Sorry, but as a law student, i don't believe in a world without taxes. How we´re gonna build schools, hospitals, roads, etc. In present time, everything needs money, and your uncle Sam's pocket it's no exception.

[thecowboy]

In my country, they really know how to do laws. Besides the Constitution, we have a special law called the Tax Code that order to any person within the borders of the country to pay taxes for any income, no matter the source, national or foreign, and no matter the reason, donation, gift, working salary, investment, etc. That way, we know how much and why we have to pay.
This is the great thing about having special laws for special issues, for you can leave the Constitution as a main guide to work with the special laws.
Sorry, but as a law student, i don't believe in a world without taxes. How we´re gonna build schools, hospitals, roads, etc. In present time, everything needs money, and your uncle Sam's pocket it's no exception.

Which country? Are there de minimis exceptions to the income? If gifts are all taxed, do the gifts have to reach a certain value in order to be taxed? Do you get taxed on birthday presents? Just curious. I'm a law student as well and am probably going to specialize in taxation.

American tax law taxes everything as well, but we have a lot of exceptions to what is defined as "income." Gifts are an exception to income taxation, but are taxed by their own set of laws, called the estate and gift tax. The dollar amount for any part of the estate and gift tax to apply, however, is high enough to preclude taxing birthday presents and such (can't remember the minimum value, but it is in the thousands).

I agree with you that taxes are necessary, I just don't think income is the right way to go about it. More specifically, wages. I like the idea of eliminating the tax on wages and moving toward a consumption tax (i.e. sales/use) instead. Unearned income would still be taxed. The tax would be progressive without arbitrary and political brackets. I.e., the more money you make the more you spend. Just my .02.

[ddoubleez]

The SC doesn't hear anymore cases on it because the 16th amendment made it a moot issue. Are you going to stand in front of the court and argue that an amendment to the constitution is unconstitutional?

If I seem fired up, I am. It is absolutely ludicrous that you are touting youtube videos to argue that the income tax laws are unconstitutional, then you post that you think the 16th amendment is to apply only to corporate income tax? Do you know what the constitution says? Educate yourself as to the matter before arguing. A mistaken preacher leads to a mistaken flock. Try thinking for yourself instead of believing what youtube videos and Harry Reid. Read the primary documents. Hell, read what you post yourself. The News Report that you posted regarding the Washington Supreme Court case does not stand whatsoever for what you posted it for. The court was construing the Washington State constitution. A wholly different document and body of law than the Federal one. I.E., states are free to tax what they want to tax so long as it doesn't violate the Federal Constitution. If a state doesn't want to tax income, then good for them. It has nothing to do with Federal Taxation.

So sorry if you are fired up, I mentioned that this was confusing and was not my field of intrest.... I am not arguing only bring up what is confusing to me so there can be some insight, but I guess you are too upset to help....

Another confusing thing is how are so many people getting the impression that it is unconstitutional, like those that have their law degrees... And why are people winning cases?

Again, not arguing, asking questions.

And on another subject, why is something automatically discredited if it is on youtube... It is just a collection of videos that people post... Sometimes from congressional hearings, sometimes from peoples bedrooms....

Did you watch either of the videos?

http://www.w3f.com/861/index.html

[ddoubleez]

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

During the following decade, however, the complexion of the Court changed somewhat, and so did public sentiment. There was great social unrest and the idea of a tax to "soak the rich" began to take root among liberals in both major parties. Several times the Democrats introduced bills to provide a tax on higher incomes but each time the conservative branch of the Republican party killed it in the Senate. The Democrats used this as evidence that the Republicans were the "party of the rich" and should be thrown out of power, forcing President William Howard Taft to acknowledge in political speeches that income taxes might be all right "in principle", but it was well known among close associates that he was strongly opposed to such a tax.

The most damaging aspect of the Sixteenth Amendment is the fact that it vitiated the unalienable rights provided in the 4th Amendment. This is the amendment which protects privacy--privacy of the home, business, personal papers and personal affairs of the private citizen. None of these are disturbed by a poll (head or capitation) tax because it is so much per person regardless of the circumstances, but when the tax is based on income, the IRS is assigned the most unpleasant task of making certain that everyone pays his fair share. This task is physically impossible without prying into the private papers, private business and personal affairs of the individual citizens. By any standard, it is a miserable assignment. Furthermore, it is impossible to run audits and surveys of all taxpayers and so the audits seldom check more than 2% of them.

http://www.salestax.org/library/skousen_16history.html

I know that our government has been at war against the 4th and 5th amendments, but they are still there.....

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" was falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913), Bill Benson wrote his fact findings in The Law That Never Was, Vols. 1 & 2. He was able to unequivocally prove that the 16th Amendment was never Constitutionally, properly, or legally ratified. The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals"

And again, cowboy, this is your field not mine, so I am intrested in anything that can counter these POVs....

Thanks in advance...

[thecowboy]

Once again, the income tax in Pollock was income related to real property. Not pure income, i.e., wages. It was the real property aspect that made it unconstitutional.

Either way, the 16th amendment expressly provides that income can be taxed, thus overruling any part of pollock that may have said that income taxation is unconstitutional.

Whether or not the 16th amendment was properly ratified is much more of a historical debate now than a legal one. Legally, it is in the constitution as an amendment, thus, income taxation is not subject to apportionment, thus, the income tax is not only not illegal, but is expressly authorized by the constitution.

[ddoubleez]

Once again, the income tax in Pollock was income related to real property. Not pure income, i.e., wages. It was the real property aspect that made it unconstitutional.

Either way, the 16th amendment expressly provides that income can be taxed, thus overruling any part of pollock that may have said that income taxation is unconstitutional.

Whether or not the 16th amendment was properly ratified is much more of a historical debate now than a legal one. Legally, it is in the constitution as an amendment, thus, income taxation is not subject to apportionment, thus, the income tax is not only not illegal, but is expressly authorized by the constitution.

So what about the argument of the right to privacy in the 4th amendment that would protect you from having to disclose your income?

And if states supersede the federal law, and they did not have the opportunity to object to the amendment, how can one say it is legal?

Would that not be similar to someone like Hilary Clunton sneaking in an amendment that contradicts the 2nd amendment while most of congress is on vacation or absent for some other reason.... Many dubois laws are passed on, or right before a holiday so no one will argue them... It sounds like the 16th was added this way....

[Krasch]

So what about the argument of the right to privacy in the 4th amendment that would protect you from having to disclose your income?

And if states supersede the federal law, and they did not have the opportunity to object to the amendment, how can one say it is legal?

Would that not be similar to someone like Hilary Clunton sneaking in an amendment that contradicts the 2nd amendment while most of congress is on vacation or absent for some other reason.... Many dubois laws are passed on, or right before a holiday so no one will argue them... It sounds like the 16th was added this way....
Even if the 4th amendment right to privacy protected you in this case I'd think it would still be only a temporary protection.

Imagine the state wants DNA evidence from you, which you decline to supply citing 4th amendment rights. The state then calls that a statement against penal interest or some such (I am not a lawyer so someone no doubt can correct any small errors here), gets a judge to sign an order compelling me to supply DNA, and my 4th amendment "right" ends up being effectively useless.

Imagine now the state wants me to disclose my income, which I again decline for the same reason. They then get a judge to sign an order compelling me to disclose on the basis of being a statement against penal interest regarding possible tax evasion or such, and I end up having to disclose anyway.

Face it, if the government wants something from you, they will inevitably either get it or incarcerate you for refusing to give it, possibly indefinitely.

Furthermore, the 4th amemdment only protects against UNREASONABLE search and seizure backed up by probable cause, and hen only in cases where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Your workplace is not such a place and could just as easily be compelled to supply the info as your income is not strictly private info (info has to be supplied when you try to obtain credit for example).

[thecowboy]

So what about the argument of the right to privacy in the 4th amendment that would protect you from having to disclose your income?

And if states supersede the federal law, and they did not have the opportunity to object to the amendment, how can one say it is legal?

Would that not be similar to someone like Hilary Clunton sneaking in an amendment that contradicts the 2nd amendment while most of congress is on vacation or absent for some other reason.... Many dubois laws are passed on, or right before a holiday so no one will argue them... It sounds like the 16th was added this way....


The 4th amendment right to privacy protects you from unreasonable search and seizures. The government would not be able to access your information without a warrant or unless you knowingly displayed it to the public. When you file your tax returns, you have knowingly displayed it to the public so your 4th amendment rights are not being infringed upon. Similarly, if there is probable cause that you have not paid your taxes, a warrant would not be difficult to obtain. The 4th amendment is by no means an absolute protection of privacy if there is probable cause that you have committed a crime, i.e., by not paying your taxes.

Any amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, whether it originates in Congress or by the states themselves (the states themselves have never originated an amendment). The 16th amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states. Congress cannot ratify an amendment to the Constitution when everyone is on vacation. It is constitutionally impossible. As previously stated, if 3/4 of the states did not ratify the amendment, then it is in fact illegal. I find that argument very hard to believe, however, as I'm sure a non-ratifying state would have objected long ago.

[thecowboy]

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/16th.htm

An interesting case challenging the ratification of the 16th amendment. For the record, I know nothing about the actual ratification, only the process and the result. I am more than open to discussion on whether or not the amendment was properly ratified. After reading a few cases and articles on it, it's a pretty interesting debate in my opinion. However, if you don't believe the amendment was properly ratified, and you don't pay your taxes on that argument, feel free to respond to this post from federal jail. I guarantee you the amendment is not going to be overturned by any court. As I said, at this point, it is a more historical debate than a legal one.