Donald Trump’s Unconstitutional and Divisive Tax Plan

Donald Trump's tax plan may in fact stimulate the US economy; however, it will continue a form of taxation that is unconstitutional and divisive. 

First, the 16th amendment provides that the federal government can collect income taxes, however; it does not provide for unequal taxation. How can progressive tax rates (0%, 10%, 20%, 25%) be justified under the 14th Amendment requirement that we all be treated equally under the law? How can a tax system constitutionally penalize or discriminate against the rich in favor of the poor? Equality requires the income tax rate be the same for everyone.

Second, we equally share responsibility for our government; however, Donald grants 50% of our citizens who will pay no income taxes, the privilege to vote on tax rates that only the other 50% will pay. This is neither equality nor liberty - it puts the wealthy in bondage to the poor. For those who wish to argue that the rich have a responsibility to the poor I ask, “Where is that found in the US Constitution?” The low income (democracy) mob will clearly steal from the rich through a system of “legal plunder” under the Donald’s tax plan.

A flat income tax rate, as proposed by Ben Carson, is constitutional and will unite us.

Kim Davis, Kentucky, and the Supreme Court.

How many of us are willing to go to jail for our religious beliefs? Kim Davis, a County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses after the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, had the courage of her convictions - she was willing to have contempt for a judge rather than contempt for her God. Many have condemned her for not fulfilling her oath of office without considering the failure of Kentucky to protect her 1st Amendment (free speech and religious) rights.

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage came after Ms Davis had taken her oath of office. The change in the law put her between the Supreme Court and her Supreme Being. She could resign from her office and lose her livelihood, or she could stand for her beliefs while waiting for Kentucky to protect her 1st Amendment rights. Subsequently she refused to issue any marriage licenses. A suit against her was brought by two gay and two straight couples. A judge ordered her to issue the licenses but she refused and went to jail for it. Why didn’t the judge order Kentucky to make accommodation for her 1st Amendment rights?

The Supreme Court decision on marriage, based on the 14th Amendment, cannot negate our 1st Amendment rights. There is a long history in US law for accommodation of religious rights. A recent example is the Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare could not require Hobby Lobby to provide abortion coverage, because the owners of the company had a religious objection to abortion. 

The judge should have recognized the conflict between the 1st and 14th Amendments in this case, understood the long history of 1st Amendment accommodation, and recognized that Ms Davis was not willing to show contempt for the highest law of the land - the Constitution. She rightly had contempt for the unconstitutional order of the judge who subsequently jailed her. This forms the basis of Governor Huckabee’s accusation of judicial tyranny.

I see too many pandering to politically correct thought with respect to the gay lobby and Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage. All they see is that Ms Davis violated her oath of office. They have no compassion for her conscience. Respect, and 1st Amendment accommodation, for Kim Davis' religious beliefs are dismissed. Kentucky must provide accommodation for Kim Davis' religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The current action of removing her name and signature on the licenses is a first step towards satisfying the 1st Amendment, since it removes the appearance of her sanctioning same-sex marriage.

After the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal, "conscience clauses" were passed into law so that health-care professionals who objected to abortion on religious grounds might be excused from a legal obligation to perform them. Similar accommodations need to be made in the case of this Supreme Court ruling. Kim's case is simply helping the 1st Amendment accommodation to occur. Let's have some respect for her in that light. If she were a doctor in a Federal hospital, would we demand that she kill a baby when the mother's life was not at risk because the law had just made it legal?

Kiwi