Friday, November 14, 2008
There Goes My Job in the Obama Administration
Check out the seven-page, 63-item questionnaire that the Obama transition team is requiring prospective cabinet members and other high-level officials to fill out. Item 10 is quite a problem for bloggers:
10. Writings: Please list and, if readily available, provide a copy of each book, article, column or publication (including but not limited to any posts or comments on blogs or other websites) you have authored, individually or with others. ...
Since I have made over 12,000 posts on TaxProf Blog, complying with this requirement would be an onerous chore. My saucy emails and text messages to my wife also would get me in trouble:
13. Electronic communications: If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect if it were made public, please describe.
Here are the tax portions of the questionnaire:
V. Tax Information
33. Please furnish a copy of each federal and state (and, if applicable, municipal or foreign) tax return, including any amended return, for 2005 and all subsequent years. [For John McCain:] If filed separately, furnish the same documents for your spouse.
34. Have you and your spouse filed all required federal, state, local and foreign income tax returns?
35. Have you or your spouse ever filed a late tax return without a valid extension? If so, describe the circumstances and resolution of the matter.
36. Have you ever paid any tax penalties? If so, describe the circumstances and the resolution of the matter.
37. Has a tax lien or other collection procedure ever been instituted against you or your spouse by federal, state or local authorities? If so, describe the circumstances and the resolution of the matter.
38. Have you ever not paid U.S. and/or state income taxes because you were not resident in the United States, or for any other reason?
39. Have you ever been or do you have any expectation that you will be the subject of any tax, financial, or other audit or inquiry? if so, please describe.
40. Have you ever participated in any investment program or partnership which has been audited or investigated by federal, state or local authorities. if so, describe the circumstances and the resolution of the matter.
VII. Domestic Help
53. Do you presently have or have you in the best had occasional (to be sure, a monthly housekeeper is covered) or regular domestic help? (e.g., a housekeeper, babysitter, nanny, or gardener) if yes, please indicate the name and years of service of each individual and also provide a brief description of the services rendered.
54. [For Mitt Romney:] Were all individuals listed in Question  legally eligible to do work in the U.S. at the time you employed them?
55. Have you paid all taxes and social security obligations applicable to the employment of the individuals listed in Question ? Do you use an outside service to pay such individuals? Have all payments related to the employment of these individuals been made in a timely fashion? If not, please identify the length and reason for the delay(s).
56. have you complied with all federal, state and local laws and regulations related to the employment of individuals listed in Question ?
I wonder if Obama could pass this vetting procedure.
Posted by: Interested-Participant | Nov 15, 2008 8:07:34 AM
Not to worry, you already have a job. It's better to provide the informaton requested than to have it provided in the near future by someone else. Lying on an employment aplication is legitimate cause for termination. About the blogging: I'm sure that naming the site would be sufficient information. When I was hired at Merrill Lynch in 1985 I spent half of the first day filling out papers. If I were hiring I'd want to know everything about people that it's legal to ask. It prevents many problems.
Posted by: Anna Catherine | Nov 15, 2008 7:53:19 AM
He who is with out sin cast the first stone. I always thought that Barack was the Black Messiah.
Posted by: timthegoatherder | Nov 14, 2008 8:12:31 PM
Wow! On one hand, I can totally understand why they are doing it. But who can possibly remember every blog comment they made. And are we only going to have "leaders" who have avoided controversy at all costs?
Posted by: FatNSassy | Nov 14, 2008 10:08:50 AM
It is quite apparent by these references to the income tax that Obama wishes to use the income tax as a measure of information and control.
The income tax however is a arrogated power and arrogated powers beyond the very limited DELEGATED powers granted to the federal government were clearly established as against the intent of the Founders and authors of the Constitution.
MONDAY, June 16, 1788. [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Direct link showing this day's Constitutional Debate on the American Patriot Party.CC Web Site: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter
"...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as not going a "single step beyond" the "delegated powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the DELEGATED powers, but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them, or "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED powers"."
As a judge relies on the framers intents of laws they must make judgments upon, these intents establish the meaning of our laws.
What is the necessary action to take when our federal government steps outside the delegated powers?
Let us listen to the words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson years after the Constitution was enacted in the "Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions" (Also found in full on the APP web site):
"Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolution: 1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are UNAUTHORATIVE, VOID, and of NO FORCE: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
8th"...as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the DELEGATED powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which HAVE NOT BEEN DELEGATED, a NULLIFICATION of the act is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to NULLIFY of their OWN authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: ..."
These are clear statements that demonstrate that ratified or not, the delegated powers were never intended to grant the federal government or its federal legislative any powers to expand beyond the very limited delegated powers set forth in the very "limited" "original" "compact" of the Constitution.
See the complete Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions on the American Patriot Party.CC Web Site;
Educating Americans, one patriot at a time.
Posted by: Richard Taylor APP | Nov 16, 2008 9:00:08 AM