RoR: Forum

What's astonishing is Conyers' sincerity. He thinks he's making a reasonable statement.

Post 1

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 2:12pm

I guess the next step is "What's the point of having the rule of law if you don't read the laws before you pass them?". We may be in trouble when our politicians blatantly acknowledge that they're asleep at the wheel.

Post 2

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 2:21pm

Well, his wife, Monica, is in a whole butt load of trouble for accepting bribes in a sludge hauling deal (and others) while she was a Detroit City Councilwoman. That whole town is going down in flames of corruption, and it ain't over.

Anyway, I'm not surprised Conyers would eschew a knowledge based decision about anything. As a Detroit City Councilman in the 80's, he voted to censor arson and crime stats in the city. The papers couldn't report on those statistics because city departments were forbidden to release any information about them. Meanwhile, the city practically burned to the ground from arson on October 30th and 31st.

Conyers is a communist proper, and always has been.

Post 3

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 6:28am

This says something at least as sad about the nature of laws today as it does the nature of politicians.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
- James Madison

Post 4

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 9:42pm

Luke,

Thanks for your Madison quote. Sending both quotes/sources together to our letters to the Editor column locally. What a difference two centuries make, huh?

jt

Post 5

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 8:06am

Jay,

No kidding! It really is sad. Have you ever seen the Federal Tax Code? I haven't, but I've been given to understand from people who have that it's ten volumes long and almost two feet thick. You'd have to be a practicing tax attorney with thirty years of experience and a photographic memory to even stand a chance of comprehending it in total. But every single one of us is supposed to follow it to the letter.

Post 6

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 1:17pm

I'm not clear on what the scope of "Federal tax code" is. Maybe it only the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which is legislated by Congress.

In addition to the IRC, there is another massive body of work called "Treasury regulations" or "Federal tax regulations." It picks up where the IRC leaves off by providing the official interpretation of the IRC by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (link) You can even search the IRC or Regulations until content, frustrated or exhausted at the link.

In addition to the above there is a massive body of Revenue Rulings. These are public administrative rulings by the IRS that apply the IRC and Regulations to particular factual situations. A revenue ruling can be relied upon by all taxpayers.

There is more. A taxpayer may, for a fee, seek advice from the IRS as to the proper tax treatment of a particular transaction. This is called a private letter ruling. It binds only the IRS and the requesting taxpayer. Thus, a private ruling may not be cited or relied upon for precedent. (link)

These extra layers of the IRC also exist for other legislation. If Congress passes health care reform legislation, there will be government departments deciding what it all means, how the money is spent and applying it as they see fit.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/30, 2:51pm)

Post 7

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 4:15pm

I wrote a letter to Senator Kyl (one of the senators for my state). He is opposed to these large bills that are delivered without time to be read. He has voted "No" on each one. I wrote and asked him why no one has filed for relief from the courts. The people are being denied representation when bills are passed without time for the people, much less their representatives, to read them.

Unfortunately, what I got back appears to be a form letter made specifically to address the complaint of bills not being read. No mention of the possibility of going to the courts.

Post 8

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 5:07pm

Watch, your senator will take your idea and file a complaint in federal court. Bet me. ;)

Form letters are annoying.

Post 9

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 6:43pm

Teresa,

My only purpose in writing the senator was to put the idea of going to the court in his mind. It might not be feasible, but even if it isn't it would be good press. And he is in a position to kick it off.

But, for all I know my idea may have gotten no further than some assistant or intern.

Post 10

Saturday, August 1, 2009 - 8:21pm