On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
> btw, re: your irs comment, i think it would be well worth the expense to see
> through each case to the supreme court. as a washington, DC resident this
> issue holds special meaning for me. i've been tempted by the dc
> representation issue to stop paying federal taxes in protest (and continue
> to pay dc taxes.) the license plate i recently received for my car states:
> "no taxation without representation" (this appears on all new dc license
> plates), and in fact i know people who claim they're not filing federal tax
> returns in protest -- i'm not quite that brave. (for those who aren't aware
> of this situation, DC residents are not given voting representation in
> congress and only in 1971 were allowed to vote for president...this is akin
> to a territory, except unlike other territories, DC residents must pay
> federal income taxes.) i say this: if we're treated like a territory, let's
> enjoy the same benefits (no federal income taxes)...otherwise give us
> statehood (sorry for the soapbox.)
Actually, if you go look at the Constitution and the part that sets aside
that parcel of land, there is no contingency for people actually living
there. It was meant to be where the government went to do business. The
Constitution also exempts that parcel of land from itself, it assigns ALL
regulatory issues to Congress, not the Constitution.
>From a Constitutional perspective, you ain't got a land to stand on.
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
