It’s Anti-American And UnConstitutional

“Taxation is just a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces”  Terry Pratchett, 1948

“Taxation is just a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces” Terry Pratchett, 1948

Our Constitution has layed out very clearly how Congress may tax us.  It is also quite clear on certain things like equal protection under the law.  It is very explicit about taxation being done in a uniform manner across the board.  It is flatly Unconstitutional for one group or product to be singled out and taxed into oblivion.  But it is happening now and those who think this doesn’t apply to you will wake up one day to find something you love has become the target of lawmakers.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says:

U.S. Constitution: Article I Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress, Utah, and other States are considering, or have passed, illegal legislation aimed at circumventing the Constitution by targeting one section of the public with both unfair taxation and statutes designed to prohibit your freedom to purchase as you will.  SCHIP, H.R. 321, was signed into law by Obama.  This bill promotes taxation up 2,000% above current levels.  If anything were to prove a tax increase that was patently illegal, SHCIP is THE perfect example.

We all know how convenient it is to purchase things over the web and have them shipped directly to our doors.  We don’t have to run out of the house, jump into the car or wait for a bus.  It’s been wonderful.  So what happens when the legislature decides you shouldn’t be able to do this anymore.  That you have to go to the store and purchase directly from the market those things you have enjoyed having sent to you directly?

While the current proposed legislation targets only a small portion of the public, (28%), once the blueprint is layed, what will they target next?

Article 1 Clause3 defines what Interstate Commerce is and how it may be regulated:

U.S. Constitution: Article I


Definition of Terms

Commerce .–The etymology of the word ”commerce” carries the primary meaning of traffic, of transporting goods across state lines for sale. This possibly narrow constitutional conception was rejected by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, which remains one of the seminal cases dealing with the Constitution. The case arose because of a monopoly granted by the New York legislature on the operation of steam-propelled vessels on its waters, a monopoly challenged by Gibbons who transported passengers from New Jersey to New York pursuant to privileges granted by an act of Congress. The New York monopoly was not in conflict with the congressional regulation of commerce, argued the monopolists, because the vessels carried only passengers between the two States and were thus not engaged in traffic, in ”commerce” in the constitutional sense.

”The subject to be regulated is commerce,” the Chief Justice wrote. ”The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more–it is intercourse.” The term, therefore, included navigation, a conclusion that Marshall also supported by appeal to general understanding, to the prohibition in Article I, Sec. 9, against any preference being given ”by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another,” and to the admitted and demonstrated power of Congress to impose embargoes.

This decision sends us back to the Constitution Article 1 Section 9

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

In direct violation of these portions of the Constitution, Congress and Utah are attempting to tell us how we may purchase tobacco products.  Again, while you may believe this has nothing to do with you personally, once precedence is set, they can abuse this power any way they choose.  So do not think you are immune or that this isn’t going to affect you!  I’ve just written about what Congress is trying to do in H.R. 875 and S. 425.  These also violate the Constitution in MANY ways.  Do not believe for a second you are safe.  Both threaten the rights and privileges of human beings.  One in regulating what you can grow in your garden by being subject to inspections and confiscations as well as fines up to $100,000.oo or $500,000.00.  The other gives human rights to companies and corporations currently ineligible for rights of any kind.  They would be designated as *Persons*.

H.R. 1400 would make it illegal to ship tobacco products across interstate lines.  Only the sale of face-to-face purchases will be allowed.  Clearly this violates all the powers Congress was given in regulating interstate Commerce:

H. R. 1400

To amend title 39, United States Code, to make cigarettes and certain other tobacco products nonmailable, and for other purposes.


March 9, 2009


To amend title 39, United States Code, to make cigarettes and certain other tobacco products nonmailable, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    (a) In General- Chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3002a the following:

`Sec. 3002b. Nonmailability of certain tobacco products

    `(a) In General- Except as provided in subsections (g) and (h), cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and roll-your-own-tobacco–

    • `(1) are nonmailable matter;
    • `(2) shall not be–
      • `(A) deposited in the mails; or
      • `(B) carried or delivered through the mails; and
    • `(3) shall be disposed of as the Postal Service directs.

Now, some may argue that since Congress was given authority to create and regulate the post office, this should be legal, however, in violating 2 points on Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 they make this patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore against the law from its inception, let alone if they actually pass it. Currently the bill has been sent to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

By Mail or Phone:

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5051

Congressional Switchboard:


Click on the link above to send an email and tell them what you think of this proposed legislation.  I have.  We cannot allow Congress or any special interest group to dictate to consumers what we may and may not purchase.  Nor should they be allowed to dictate HOW we legally purchase our legal goods.  Otherwise if you think your girly magazine is safe, wait till some prude in Congress decides that shouldn’t be allowed across State lines.  Or clothing because the local merchants are hurting.  The list of possible abuses from this humble beginning is ENDLESS!

As for Utah, here is their proposed legislation:

6 Chief Sponsor: Margaret Dayton
7 House Sponsor: ____________

10 General Description:
11 This bill amends the criminal code to make it a violation to cause tobacco products to
12 be ordered or purchased through the Internet or by mail order.
13 Highlighted Provisions:
14 This bill:
15 . defines terms;
16 . establishes a criminal violation for causing tobacco products to be ordered or
17 purchased through the Internet or by mail; and
18 . establishes penalties for violating the prohibition against mail-order or Internet sales
19 and delivery of tobacco products.5

Contact UTAH Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel Here:

States with current total bans on direct shipping of tobacco products include; Arkansas, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Ohio and Vermont.

Washington State is attempting to pass legislation.

Maine has attempted it but the Supreme Court shot them down.  Don’t think for a moment this is over yet though.

Idaho has at least attempted to do this also.  I cannot verify that this bill has passed though.


This list seems endless but if these were legal, then why has internet purchases continued?  The fact is that were these to be challenged, the Supreme Court would flatly deny these States their legislation.  I would think this was a lawyers wet dream as far as going after illegal laws and State statutes, yet few if any have have the courage to take this one on.  It gives rise to conspiracy theories!

Again, the point of this is not truly about cigarettes or tobacco in general but about illegal legislation, illegal taxation and extortion targeting ONE product or portion of the public.  It is about the united States government, the States themselves, and the infringement of our rights to equal protection under the law.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment States:


Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to the EPA’s own list of air pollutants, tobacco smoke doesn’t even make the list!  This all seems to be a personal issue with these legislators, something that is patently ILLEGAL also.

Judge Osteen heard the case on the EPA’s findings versus facts.  The Judge reprimanded the EPA as follows:







(ETS Risk Assessment). EPA claims its authority to conduct the ETS Risk Assessment derives from the Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1758-60 (1986) (Radon Research Act) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 5 7401 note (1994)). In the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA evaluated the respiratory health effects of breathing secondhand smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) and classified ETS as a Group A carcinogen, a designation meaning there is sufficient evidence to conclude ETS causes cancer in humans. Disputing the Assessment, Plaintiffs argue: EPA exceeded its authority under and violated the restrictions within the Radon Research Act; EPA did not comply with the Radon Research Act’s procedural requirements; EPA violated administrative law procedure by making a conclusion regarding ETS before it concluded its risk assessment, and EPA’s ETS Risk Assessment was not the result of reasoned decision making. EPA denies the same and argues the administrative record (record) demonstrates reasoned decision making. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to supplement …

Now, while the actual court document can be accessed via the link above, it is convoluted and very hard to read and understand unless you are a lawyer.  So I’ve searched for, and found, this document which clearly and concisely states the problems with the EPA’s findings as Judge Osteen found.  This document is ONLY 2 pages long.  It shows just how bad the EPA study was/IS, calls into question all other studies the EPA has done or will do, and voids their studies all together.  A must read.

EPA’s ETS Risk Assessment
EPA’s Risk Assessment on ETS
• Appears to have adjusted science to fit a predetermined policy which it viewed as politically correct – by using highly controversial statistical techniques and actually lowering the generally accepted statistical standard from a 95% confidence interval to a 90% confidence interval. Without the Agency’s “new math .” the EPA could not have reached their predetermined conclusion .
• Ignored data from one of the largest US . studies on ETS (funded in part by the National Cancer Institute) . If the agency had included the data from this large U .S . survey, the EPA could not have reached their predetermined conclusion .
. Employs what EPA characterizes as precedent setting statistical techniques . If these techniques are permitted to stand as a precedent, they could place a very large number of everyday products at risk of also being classified under EPA’s cancer guidelines- including chlorinated water, electrical products and lines, diesel
fuel, etc .

EPA’s Risk Assessment on ETS
IS NOT the result of EPA’s original research .
IS NOT the result of scientific laboratory experiments .
EPA’s Risk Assessment on ETS
IS a literature review of already published studies .
• IS a statistical “analysis” of data gained from questionnaires or surveys which rely on interviews and long-term memory .(epidemiological studies) EPA’s risk assessment on ETS is a prime example of the agency’s acknowledized short comings of its use of science .
• EPA’s commissioned audit of its scientific process entitled
SafeGuarding the Future : Credible Science, Credible Decisions (March of 1992) raised some very serious and fundamental criticisms of EPA’s use of science in policy making – including criticisms of adjusting science to fit policy and ignoring contrasting scientific information. In the ETS Risk Assessment, by continuing practices criticized in SafeGuarding the Future, the EPA gives the public the latest examale of the agency’s unique definition of “political science .”Public Policy Issues

• Given the publicly acknowledged fundamental criticisms raised by SafeGuarding the Future, isn’t increased oversight of EPA’s scientific process necessary? Without such oversight on the integrity of the process at EPA given the fundamental criticisms of SafeGuarding the Future,
Isn’t public confidence in EPA’s analysis of environmental problems
likely to erode?

Aren’t the economy and taxpayers likely to be burdened by
unnecessary costs and taxes?

It is well known that a small but extremely vocal segment of organized interest groups have an announced goal of achieving a smoke free world by the year 2000 and there is a bias against tobacco in some quarters .However, if EPA’s new definition of “political science” is not the subject of scrutiny and oversight, how can we be sure that other products and practices haven’t been or won’t be singled out?
~ We urge you – don’t just believe tobacco – but look into the ~ scientific process at EPA yourself, ~

It should be noted, that while Judge Osteen’s conclusion were vacated DUE TO JURISDICTION, THE FINDINGS THEMSELVES HAVE NEVER BEEN DISPUTED!!!

The two studies that the EPA ignored were from The World Health Organization which proved conclusively that children subjected to SHS, (second hand smoke), were 22% LESS LIKELY TO COME DOWN WITH LUNG CANCER. Be sure and go into the study and read the conclusions!

And the second study was Enstrom and Kabat.  This study was ignored because at the very end of their research the two scientists were defunded by those wanting to prove conclusively that cigarette smoking caused cancer.  When it became apparant that the data DID NOT support these desired results, Anti-Smoking advocates stopped funding them.  The Tobacco industry stepped in to allow them to print and publish their findings but did not fund any of the research.  A PDF version Here:1057

Outright lies, junk science, these are what organizations such as the WHO, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Institute, and so many other well known and trusted organizations use against smokers.  IF THEY LIE ABOUT ONE THING THEY WILL LIE ABOUT OTHERS.  YOU CANNOT TRUST YOUR HEALTH INFORMATION TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS.  Their anti-smoking rhetoric cannot pass true scientific testing and scrutiny.


~ by justmytruth on March 15, 2009.

6 Responses to “It’s Anti-American And UnConstitutional”

  1. You probably won’t see this since it’s been weeks – I lost the link til today when Lynda posted it again, so now I’ve got it bookmarked, finally!

    I guess that means even rice in a box, I’ll assume so.

    I guess I’ll have to sublimate my knowledge of all that talcum powder I’ve eaten over the years!

  2. Hi Kendra,
    Yes I see the comment, , not to worry. I’m glad you liked the article enough to keep looking for it again. I don’t think I’ve noticed the same problem with rice in the box, but I am simply in the habit of washing all foods before they are in the pot. Hopefully what you’ve eaten won’t hurt you…

  3. Hi there Kendra! It was me who put the link to this blog up on Siegel’s blog (I forget what posting I did it for though) LOL

    Yes, she does a great job researching and dissecting all this stuff….I just don’t have the time to be so thorough – much to my shame I know. I’ll need to adjust that somehow (or find a pep elixer to boost my energy levels, especially at night) LOL

  4. Ummmm, I think the real difference might be that you work and I do not??? Ya, that seems right to me. I do have more time than you do to research this stuff!

  5. Sorry, this is the wrong post for this comment, but I keep getting the wrong one somehow. Also, my head is simply reeling from reading for over an hour.

    In the great scheme of things, this is pretty small potatoes, but you wrote:

    “I’m not sure what to make of this one. If these are known contaminants, unless they are naturally occurring, how will a list help us? And will it cover such things as the talc powder that ALL rice is processed in to keep it from sticking together? That is a huge hazard to human health yet it is still going on. Unless you wash your rice thoroughly before cooking, that stuff is in with your food when you eat it!

    I never knew about this!! I don’t even know if it’s all that bad – there’s so much fear-mongering. The last I knew was DON’T wash rice, because you’re washing away nutrients.

    I think this is the last straw for me today, but I will be a regular reader now (someone referred to your blog, but I don’t remember now who or in what blog – someone who knows you, though, I do remember that). I appreciate very much your analyzing these pieces of legislation.

  6. Hi Kendra,

    Trust me when I tell you to thoroughly wash that rice, at least if it is white rice. Do a google search on talcum powder and you will find out all you ever wanted to know about this stuff. You will find it very bad to ingest.

    Thanks for stopping by. Glad to have both your input and thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: