Does the SCOTUS Support Capital Gains Taxes?


Posted Jun 25, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Supreme Court BW

The government believes it has unlimited power to tax the citizens of the United States. The idea of capital gains taxes on unrealized earnings will be an economic nuclear disaster. The Democrat-appointed Supreme Justices believe that Moore v. United States does not exceed Congress’s Constitutional authority to tax unrealized gains. America’s entire future is on the line.

On June 20, 2024, the US Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold federal taxes on foreign income. There will be a one-time tax on shares of undistributed profits, and they anticipate the move will earn the Fed $340 billion. Only Justices Gorsuch and Thomas argued that Moore v. United States is unconstitutional and must be abolished.  Kavanaugh stated that this ruling need not be interpreted at the court authorizing taxation on unrealized income. Yet it is a major step in that direction.

Biden_Promised_to_Put_a_Black_Woman_on_the_Supreme_Court_The_New_York_Times

Biden’s appointee to the bench, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, supports capital gains taxation. This is the first time a Justice has spoken directly on the topic in favor of the practice. She argued that the income need not be realized before it can be taxed. She feels it is not a Constitutional right but rather a principle founded on equality. Jackson has extremely far-left views regarding wealth in America that are outright racist. While Sotomayor stated race must not be factored in when analyzing the Constitution, Jackson wrote a separate piece last June “to expound upon the universal benefits of considering race in this context.” But this isn’t about race for the Biden Administration. He appointed Jackson to have a socialist voice on the bench to promote “equality,” which ultimately amounts to everyone having nothing – you will own nothing and be happy.

Thomas Justice

The far left is stumped by Justice Clarence Thomas, who upholds the Constitution in favor of its original intentions. You never hear Thomas speak of his race when discussing a ruling as it simply DOES NOT MATTER — we are all protected under one nation, indivisible. He called affirmative action “rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.” He believes “all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law” and rejects the notion that one should feel victimized based on race. Racial politics is merely a method to divide the people. It certainly has no place in America’s top court.

President Biden has proposed a 25% tax on income and unrealized gains for the wealthiest Americans earning over $100 million. This opens the door to creating a third income tax. They always begin by taxing the wealthiest, but sooner than later, it will pass on to everyone. The proposal also suggests taxing estates of over $5 million on unrealized capital gains in the event of a death to prevent generational wealth.

Eisner v. Macomber stated that unrealized gains were NOT income during the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. This would punish anyone from owning an appreciating asset, even homeownership would be a taxable penalty if unrealized gains were grabbed by the government. Taxes are never repealed. The government will continue to tax the people into poverty if permitted to do so, and that is precisely how empires fall. The government is utterly desperate for funding and believes shaking down Americans is a better solution than curtailing its own spending.

Supreme Court Hears Immunity Arguments, Administrative State Smiling – SCOTUS Likely to Send Case Back to Lower Court


Posted originally on the CTH on April 26, 2024 | Sundance

The issue of presidential immunity is being tested in the DC political Lawfare case against President Donald Trump.

As the Jack Smith prosecution claims President Trump tried to “overturn the results of the 2020 election,” the issue of presidential actions intended to secure & protect the legitimacy of election outcomes becomes a focus.

The legal counsel for President Trump has stated any action by the president to ensure election security falls within official acts, and is therefore subject to immunity from prosecution.  The special counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the president and not part of presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court is now involved in determining whether the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution, or whether any/all future presidents can be prosecuted for their action while in office.  Inside the debate is the larger question of whether the “bureaucratic state” controls the president, or whether the office of the president controls the executive branch bureaucratic state.

The leftists and communists agree with former AG Bill Barr, that institutions run the government, and the office of the President is simply a figurehead within it.  In essence, the DC institutions are omnipotent and powerful, and the president is simply occupying space the deep state allows.  That’s the core ramification within the immunity argument.

In this video, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks several questions about limiting the immunity of the president and some of the ramifications that will surface for future presidents.  WATCH:

Interestingly, at 2:30 of the video, Justice Kavanaugh notes the current Lawfare approach – crowdsourcing for prosecution angles with the DOJ, which was the same Lawfare approach used by the beach friends to attack Kavanaugh’s nomination.  Judge Kavanaugh uses that hidden reference point – very subtlety – but its inclusion shows that he knows exactly what is taking place here.

I also like the part where the DOJ argues President Obama is not guilty of murder, via drone strike, because the type of murder created by Obama in that situation was “lawful murder.”  Collateral killing via drone strike is considered by the DOJ to be: the lawful murder of another person with malice of forethought and specific intent to kill.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with the DC administrative Deep State having the power to determine what is “lawful conduct” vs “unlawful conduct” by their political opposition?  Oh wait, it’s done by DOJ statutory interpretation, lolol… now I feel better.   Good grief, can people not see where this ends.

That said, here’s what the SCOTUS is going to do… I’m 95% certain of this.

[Oh, and Steve Bannon’s insufferable legal analysis, by Mike Davis, is GASLIGHTING.  Davis is an idiot and totally dishonest legal mind (wants to be AG – God, help us), who only tells MAGA what they want to hear; so, I would suggest ignoring his claim that SCOTUS will rule support for Trump with absolute immunity.  Mike Davis is totally wrong.]

The Supreme Court is not going to get into the debate of what action is “immune” vs what action is “not immune”; the court simply hates that stuff.

This unwillingness to get into the granular debate of statutory interpretation is the same reason why the court will not look at what the executive branch defines as “classified documents” vs “non-classified” documents.  Once they open that pandora’s box, there would be a bazillion appeals for a SCOTUS writ on the baseline of illegitimately denied FOIA requests.  They ain’t going to touch it.  Same applies here.

The Supreme Court is going to send this back to the lower DC court, and tell them to hash out the issue of “private interest” acts vs “official” acts.   This is the core of the originating issue.

Was President Trump ensuring the integrity of an election outcome he considered sketchy (official act), or was President Trump trying to overturn the election by ensuring election integrity (private interest act).

That’s the question that SCOTUS is going to tell the lower court to battle out, and then the SCOTUS will weigh in if needed. The Supreme Court is going to send this case back down to the lower court for definitions of “official act” -vs- “private interest act” before they will touch the immunity issue.

Here’s the full oral argument hearing at the Supreme Court:

Supreme Court Appears to Lean Favorably Toward Government in First Amendment Case of Federal Coercion of Social Media


Posted originally on the CTH on March 18, 2024 | Sundance 

Oral arguments were heard today in the appeal of the government against the states of Louisiana, Missouri and seven plaintiffs who claim that Biden officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to suppress or delete content about COVID-19 that federal officials found objectionable.

The Biden administration had an extensive communication pipeline into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and various subsidiary tech companies where instructions, the government says “encouragement”, were/was given about the removal of content critical of the government position, and the removal of content providers – American citizens.  Full Hearing Audio:

Making the case for the Biden administration, Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher led the way.  “We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,” he said.

Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion for the social media platforms to enforce their existing rules at the time barring Covid-19 misinformation.  “If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” he said. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”

Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the speech the platforms were suppressing wasn’t their own speech but those of third parties, ordinary Americans. Aguiñaga also said the users often had no idea they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod the platforms to take down content.  “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.

The questioning by the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to favor the government, in large part due to the inability of the plaintiffs to outline direct actionable harm to them as an outcome of the regulation of their speech by the tech platforms.  The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the case by late June.

Crying over the Supreme Court Decision – Get Over It


Posted originally on Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Crying

Some critics are obviously anti-Trump who have come out crying that’s really unusual for the Court to give such little notice that they would release a decision. They are indeed crying that this was because of Super Tuesday and therefore they are trying to support Trump.

Let me explain something here to these absolutely biased idiots. Let’s say the Supreme Court waited until May or June to release its decision, and you have Colorado, Maine, and Illinois who blocked Trump. Then what would happen? The entire 2024 election might be seriously impacted and then challenged in court in another array of suits. They had to rule, and it was UNANIMOUS before Super Tuesday to avoid a constitutional crisis. EVERYONE on the court agreed – Colorado had no such jurisdiction – PERIOD!

GET OVER IT!

THIS WAS NOT A 5-4 DECISION

IT WAS UNANIMOUS

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

As I wrote in my Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court, the last time any state refused to allow a candidate on the ballot was 1860 when Abraham Lincoln did not appear on the ballots in the South. What followed? The Civil War.

The Founding Fathers never intended to allow a rogue state to interfere in either national commerce or national federal elections, as implied in the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause
3 of the U.S. Constitution. Could Colorado remove a senator or congressman of another state claiming that they were part of the January 6th event they called an unarmed insurrection? There is no jurisdiction for a single state to remove a national candidate from the ballot – PERIOD! Assuming such power would mean they too could interfere in the commerce of other states. That would lead to complete chaos. Even Sotomayor, the favorite of the Democrats, wrote clearly:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

Brainwash Menticide

Anyone who cannot see that is so biased; they no longer have a functioning brain cell. They have been so brainwashed, they are no longer competent even to vote. We are either a nation with a national identity or a patchwork of states that no longer should pretend to be united.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Removing Trump from the Ballots


Posted Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 
Trump_v._Anderson_03_04_2024_

Trump v Colorado Decision

COMMENT: Marty, the Supreme Court bought your argument that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the states to remove Trump from the ballot. Even the Democrats on the Court unanimously agreed that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. You were right.

“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

BP

REPLY: If this had not been political nonsense, it was a case that should have been dismissed as frivolous. A court is supposed FIRST to determine if it has the jurisdiction to hear the case. This was such a biased maneuver by those who brought the actions and the judges involved that it illustrates more than anything how BROKEN and MORALLY CORRUPT our legal system has become. It is no more trustworthy today than it was in Rome before the fall.

As I submitted to the Court, there cannot be such jurisdiction to allow one state to prejudice a national election for all. Under the precedents, those involved committed a crime because their motive was to interfere in the 2024 election. These people are only concerned on winning at all costs and to keep the prospect for war alive. They advocated the overthrow of the government, which is the very thing they have accused Trump of.

As I wrote to the Court, allowing a single state to interfere in a national election undermines the very structure of the Constitution. One rogue state cannot block everyone else in the country from voting. Elections are for the people to decide – not backroom deals and conspiracys of bureaucrats seeking to retain power.

Even the concurring opinion of Sotomayor agreed there is no state jurisdiction to enforce the 14th Amendment. She wrote:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

“The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. “

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Colorado “Insurrection” Ballot Eligibility Case


Posted originally on the CTH on January 5, 2024 | Sundance

In a Friday notice, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging a Colorado democrat court decision to block President Trump from the GOP ballot under the auspices of a 14th amendment claim.  [SCOTUS Announcement pdf HERE]

The high court has scheduled oral arguments for February 8, 2024, and set forth a schedule as below for the case review.

[Source pdf]

President Trump will appear on the Colorado ballot (and also Maine) while the Supreme Court takes up the case.  Both the Colorado effort (court) and the Maine decree (Secretary of State) were stayed pending appeal.  In essence, and reflected in both their actions, in both states the decisionmakers expect to lose.

WASHINGTON DC – Plunging into a political minefield, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The court agreed Friday to consider whether states have the power to disqualify Trump from the ballot due to his attempts to upend the 2020 election and his role in stoking the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (MORE)

[…] Ballots for some overseas and military voters registered in Colorado will have already been mailed out by the time oral arguments happen on Feb. 8, and four days later, ballots are scheduled to be sent to most Colorado voters.

Colorado is a predominately vote-by-mail state, meaning most voters will have their ballots in hand — and potentially cast them — well before the March 5 primary.

Meanwhile, giving indications of exactly who is promoting and supporting this overall dynamic, LAWFARE is currently running an organizational chart to show which states are trying to follow a similar path [SEE HERE].  It is not accidental that Andrew Weissman is promoting the effort [SEE HERE].

In the biggest of big pictures, the Lawfare group who are assembled inside every effort to remove Trump are the exact same group of political conspirators.  These are the facilitators for a weaponized justice system from inside and outside government.

Always remember, the Lawfare crew have a self-preservation interest in the elimination of their original 2016 target, Donald Trump.

Will the Supreme Court Save the Nation?


Posted originally on Dec 28, 2023 By Martin Armstrong 

supremecourt

The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court

This effort to prevent Trump from running for President is presenting a major CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. We have the extremely LEFTIST Supreme Court of Colorado ruling unconstitutionally that Trump should be barred from being on the ballot. Then we have the Michigan Supreme Court ruling against Colorado. Now, the State of Maine, another LEFTIST government, is also seeking to follow Colorado.

These Leftist Governments are planning to really destroy the Constitution in any way they possibly can. Not a single person on January 6th was criminally charged with the Insurrection Statute. Yet, these LEFTIST states are trying to use the 14th Amendment to block Trump from running when it has NEVER been used even once in history against any Southerner.

Khruschev Nikta

These states are fulfilling the warnings of Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971). They are so anti-Constitution and are allowing this country to be flooded with people from South America who have traditionally been Marxists, which is why they have destroyed their own economies and are flooding into the United States for free food, clothing, healthcare, and to be taken care of for life as long as they vote for the Marxists here determined to destroy the US economy.

Economy Dying

Our model warns of a recession from May 7th, 2024, into 2028. As Chairman Powell of the Federal Reserve warned, this spending by Biden is “unsustainable,” and there may not even be an election by 2028. Democracy is all about letting the people decide. States are rigging the ballots so that no challenger in the Democratic primary may appear on any ballot, leaving no choice for Democrats but Biden. Then, they are trying to prevent Trump from running at all. This is not Democracy – it is totalitarianism.

Lincoln House Divided
Will Supreme Court Save Nation

I fear we have reached the end of the rule of law. If the Supreme Court strikes down these Marxist States, they will only claim it was a Republican Decision. The very idea of a “UNITED” formation of states can no longer be justified. The nation has become so deeply divided; as Abraham Lincoln once said, a house divided cannot stand. This is what we face as we move into 2032. The Supreme Court instigated the Civil War with the Dread Scott decision when they tried to defuse the potential for the Civil War.

Emerson was Scott’s owner, and he allowed Scott to get married and left Scott and his wife in Wisconsin when Emerson traveled to Louisiana. Emerson died in 1843, and Scott attempted to purchase his freedom from Emerson’s widow, but she refused. Dread Scott argued that since he became a permanent resident in the federal territory of Wisconsin, which prohibited slavery, he became a freeman. The district court applied the laws of Missouri to find Scott was still a slave, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It then went to the Supreme Court, in a hotly watched issue, then much as removing Trump from the ballots today. In a highly contentious opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, he held that persons of African descent were not citizens of the United States. The Court reasoned that, at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, persons of African descent were brought to the U.S. as property and, whether later freed or not, could not become U.S. citizens. With that decision, the Civil War became the solution. Abraham Lincoln was never on the ballots in 10 states: South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Virginia. He did not receive any votes from the states that would later form the Confederacy besides Virginia, where Republicans secured 1% of the votes. History is repeating once again. Today, the Marxist-following states that do not believe in Equal Protection of the Law seek to remove Trump from their ballots as well to prevent him from becoming president, precisely as was done to Abraham Lincoln.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, as in Dread Scott, one side will never support the outcome. It is questionable if the United States will ever be able to stand as one nation once again.

Supreme Court Will Hear Dispute Over Twisted Jack Smith Obstruction Law Used to Indict J6 Defendants and Donald Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on December 13, 2023 | Sundance

Two of the charges against Donald Trump are centered around 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As noted by Julie Kelly, “The statute was meant to close a loophole in other obstruction laws related to the destruction of evidence but left open to interpretation the terms “corruptly” and “official proceeding.”

In addition to Donald Trump, this federal statute meant to target organized crime and financial crimes has been used against 300 J6 defendants. Three J6 defendants have appealed the use of this provision to charge them with obstruction. A DC trial judge originally agreed with the argument and dismissed the framework of the Lawfare effort.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the dismissal order.

J6 Defendants Edward Lang, Garrett Miller and Joseph Fischer appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now agreed to take up the case, U.S. v Fischer. In one way, this can be looked at as the Supreme Court reviewing the charges against Donald Trump, without ruling on the charges against Donald Trump.

There is a strong possibility the twisted Lawfare use of 18 USC 1512 by the DOJ will be rejected by the court, thereby removing two of the charges against Trump.

Washington — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear a court fight involving the breadth of a federal obstruction law that has been used to prosecute scores of defendants for their alleged actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, as well as former President Donald Trump.

An eventual decision from the Supreme Court in the case known as Fischer v. U.S. could have far-reaching impacts, since the Justice Department has charged more than 300 people under the obstruction statute in cases related to Jan. 6.

Most significantly, special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with a single count of corruptly obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, namely Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6. The former president has pleaded not guilty to that offense and the three others he is facing in the case related to the 2020 presidential election. A trial in Trump’s case is set to begin in March.

Arguments before the Supreme Court will take place next year, with a decision, which could threaten Trump’s charge, expected by the end of June. (read more)

As we have noted from the outset, Lawfare is a construct, a twisted manipulation of law, specifically intended for media consumption with the end goal to influence public opinion.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has applied twisted interpretations of law to his cases. The ability of the constructs to withstand judicial scrutiny has only just begun.

SCOTUS: Trump May Run for President in 2024


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Oct 5, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The establishment has been doing everything in its power to stop Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump may run for the presidency next year. Multiple individual states have attempted to remove him from the future ballot, and in this particular case, John Anthony Castro, a man with no chance of winning the race, brought the case forward. Castro stated that Trump should be ineligible to run for office due to the events of January 6.Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

None of the 1,000+ protesters were arrested or charged with “insurrection.” Trump was correct when he said, “They’re after YOU, I’m just in the way.” They needed to demonize the protestors in order to attack Trump at the top. The 14th Amendment was passed on June 13, 1866, with the sole purpose of punishing those who supported the South during the US Civil War. Trump did not engage in a rebellion. He had valid questions about the results of the election and did not fund or encourage the acts of J6.

We have seen numerous politicians protest on the streets for social justice causes. The Squad members faked their arrest after protesting outside of the Supreme Court. The Democrats encouraged the people to take to the streets in the aftermath of George Floyd, and those protests were actual riots where cities burned and people were murdered. They would need to drain the entire swamp if they wanted to uphold this clause in the manner they wish to interpret it.

Trump is too popular to stop. He is leading all the polls and has not attended a single debate. Trump is in the 24/7 news cycle, and whether good or bad, he receives more press than all the other candidates combined. The people want Trump back in office – the country was in a drastically better place only a few years ago. Too bad our leaders are installed and not elected.