Why can't the American people file a law suit against the government for passing UN-Constitutional laws?

Question

I guess I should have said ...if we can ...why is there not a class action law suit against them for creating the IRS? And if there is why do we not hear about an of them?

YBy Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

ou people are idiots!

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

Then why did this guy win his case against the IRS if it was Constitutional? Lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts. Google it!

Answer 1

Because a country can always do what it thinks is right to protect there people. So if somebody messes with France and the UN thinks they should not use military action then France can ignore it and use self defense

Answer 2

Many people have. The constitutionality of laws regularly ends up in the Supreme Court. But the government also has soveriegn immunity against many types of lawsuits unless they agree to be sued.

Many people have brought lawsuits against laws in their States that they believe are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court must agree to hear these lawsuits, and then decide if the law is unconstitutional. For example, some anti-immigration, and some same-sex marriage laws that the States have passed will end up being tested in the Supreme Court.

Many people have tried to sue the IRS, stating that the income tax is not legal because it was never ratified by 3/4 of the States. The Supreme Court has basically said "That's the way we've done it and we are going to keep doing it that way." I think taxes are here to stay.

Answer 3

First of all, hex, it happens all the time. There's a legal concept called "standing" that every plaintiff must have in order to file a lawsuit. A would-be plaintiff must have been (or must be able to prove that he will be) harmed by the law in question, the harm must be caused by the defendant (in this case the U.S. gov't), and there needs to be a redressable injury.
Putting that aside for a second, there is a long-standing principle known as state sovereign immunity, holding that a government cannot be sued for the actions of its agents.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congressional actions under the spending power (like unconstitutional laws, the IRS, etc.) do not confer standing on U.S. citizens, because the second prong of the test (the harm being CAUSED by the defendant) is not met.
You can sue, in certain states, the State government for violation of the State constitution. But not all states--it depends.
I disagree with the Court's view, by the way...I think citizens should be able to sue the federal government for unconstitutional laws.

Answer 4

you're probable our of success. Congress appropriated that funds and that's a executed-deal. do no longer you preserve a replica of the US shape on your table? Article a million, section 8, paragraph 18, of the US shape is spoke of as the "mandatory and proper" clause and it covers a large number of Congress' sins. They appropriated the money as element of a few protection spending or distant places help invoice and deliver it alongside with a President's superb needs after he signed it. those issues are interior the works for an prolonged time so it relatively is perplexing to appreciate if it became right into a Democratic Congress (they have been on top of issues for greater advantageous than 40 years previous to 1995 and now returned via fact that 2006) or the GOP. Which President signed it is likewise each and each individual's wager via fact that we've been attempting to effect Pakistan for an extremely, very long term. That region has been a tinderbox consistently. India and Pakistan are consistently in a cat-combat approximately some thing and now they the two have nukes. hi, we help them the two so are not getting bent out of shape approximately in common terms certainly one of them. we've basically had a lot greater acceptable success with India. they have been a lot greater powerful with commerce and progression via fact of globalization and doubtless have found out that they have got have greater to lose in the event that they get blown up. permit's wish that the Bush/Obama State Departments can calm this down. the hot Pakistani President isn't the main solid of the international's leaders and their financial equipment is in shambles. The terrorists are working their instruct. no longer a good difficulty.

Answer 5

Because our Historical Memory is short. Politicians today forgot that our forefathers escaped countries that taxed heavily to come here. Taxes allow many Politicians, Departments, and Agencies to keep running. If we did away with taxes, we would essentially be taking away their jobs. Government today is about Deep Pocket Protectionism, not representing the people who elected them.

We need someone at the Highest Office actually looking out for Americans. Someone who has a track record of voting in favor of the public, and not their own political/financial motives.

Someone who is willing to take the paycut and refuse extravagant and ostentatious perks. Someone who is willing to give back the Government to the people and take it away from Special Interest Groups and their Big Business cronies.

That person, my friend, is Ron Paul.

Vote Ron Paul for President 2008.

Answer 6

We can, however we need to get together and fight the laws. That is the main reason behind the ACLU and why Republicans hate them so much. Republicans love unconstitutional laws like the Military Commissions Act of 2006!

What we could do also is to make the Congress submit to the Supreme Court any law that might be unconstitutional for an opinion, like many states do to their Supreme Courts. We don't need more Attorney Generals who work for the president and not for the people!

Answer 7

Amendment XVI
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.

Looks like the constitution allows for taxes. Hmmmm....

Answer 8

How so you expect the American citizens to pay for all the benefits for all the illegal aliens if they are not squeezed by the IRS.

By the way, the US Supreme Court interprets the constitutionally of our laws and the Constitution gives each citizen the right to redress grievances against the government....now go back to watching MTV

Answer 9

The Supreme Court, not the people determine if a law is constitutional or not.
What law are you referring too. I have heard no such accusations recently unless, of course, you are a Move On .org goofball. Are you?

Answer 10

You can by votibng for a senator who agrees with you. The government is very kind in not alowing you to waste a lot of money trying too sue them.

Answer 11

The courts are filled with lawsuits claiming this exact thing. Is there an UNConstitutionality you specifically have in mind?

Every Supreme court case must be decided on the Constitutionality of the case.