Tea parties and abusive sovereigns by Paul F Hannan

TEA PARTIES AND ABUSIVE SOVEREIGNS
by
Paul F. Hannan
The Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter the IRS) should be eliminated from the
American dictionary, as well as from its branches of government. As it was with King George III
nearly 245 years ago today, the IRS has proved itself unworthy of the American people’s trust, as
well as its funding. A flat earnings tax, along with a simplistic spending tax, is all that’s required
to fill its shoes, saving the American government and its tax payers nearly nine billion dollars per
year.1
A Brief History of the IRS
But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to
carry his authority as far as it will go.2
“That collection of taxes is vital to the functioning, indeed existence, of government
cannot be denied.”3 Montesquieu, in The Spirit of The Laws, discussed the need of “taxation for
the augmentation of troops.”4 Consistent with these sentiments, Hobbes states that the “sovereign
is commander and chief of the army . . . and will have the ability to tax subjects for the cost
thereof.”5 Further, Hugo Grotius asserts: “Nations can have no peace without Arms, no Arms
without Pay, and no Pay without Taxes.”6 And it was for this very same purpose that America’s
1
1 Howard Gleckman, IRS Gets Hammered in the 2014 Budget Agreement (January 14, 2014) (based on the excess of
ten billion per year spent presently, minus approximately one billion for a greatly simplified replacement tax
recovery system).
2 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent, trans. p. 137 (2010)
3 United State v. Kimbell Foods Inc. 440 U.S. 715, 734 (1979)
5 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Edwin Curley, trans. p. 114 (1994)
6 Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, trans. Richard Tuck, bk. 1, p. 215 (2005) (Citing Tacitus) (emphasis
in the original)

income tax scheme was established. Indeed, the genesis of the IRS dates back to “the Civil War
when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal
Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses.”7 Although “the income tax was
repealed 10 years later.”8 Congress subsequently “revived the income tax in 1894, but the
Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional that following year.”9 The 16th Amendment, which gave
Congress the authority to implement an income tax, was approved by the “three-quarter majority
of states necessary to amend the Constitution.”10 And while the 16th Amendment did not cut the
income tax entirely away from its original “fund the military” moorings, it certainly gave
Congress leave to expand its criterion for tax revenue spending. It was shortly thereafter that
“Congress levied a one percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a six percent
surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.”11 However, to the astonishment of the nation’s
populace, during World War I “the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance
the war effort.”12 The tax rate was thereafter reduced to a twenty-four percent cap, but then “rose
again during the Great Depression.”13 And it was during World War II, that “Congress introduced
payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.”14
2
7 IRS.gov, A Brief History of the IRS (March 7, 2015)
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.

During the 1950’s this tax agency was “reorganized to replace a patronage system with
career, professional employees.”15 Further, the agency’s name was also modified, and thus
became the Internal Revenue Service. Presently, with nearly 100,000 employees,16 the IRS
constitutes an appreciable segment of our government. Yet “only the IRS commissioner and
chief counsel are selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.”17 As large as this
organization is, it is thus unsurprising to discover that it has been plagued by failures of
equivalently large scale measure. Yet the IRS has, in the past, acknowledged many of these --
often glaring -- shortcomings. Indeed, in an attempt to cure the agencies many deficiencies and
failures, particularly with regard to the harsh treatment of countless individual taxpayers in the
past, Congress enacted the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.18 The objective of this
Act was to create “a friendlier and gentler giant,”19 to get the IRS “to closely resemble the
private sector model of organizing around customers with similar needs.”20 However, the reader
must not fail to recognize that “customers” are customarily defined as voluntary users of
services. Hence, the IRS’ objective, albeit lofty and noble, strike the lion’s share of tax payers as
little more than illusory.
In spite of this considerable need for governments to draw a significant revenue base
through the taxation of their citizenry, the treacherous waters of taxation are strewn with a
3
15 Id.
16 Stephen Moore, The IRS Has Around 100,000 Employees. And Yet It’s Still Incredibly Incompetent (January 18,
2015)
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Walt Disney Pictures, Aladdin (1992)
20 Id.

multitude of dangers, both for individuals and corporations alike. Indeed, as was stated by a
paragon among jurists shortly after our nation’s birth, “the power to tax involves the power to
destroy.”21 Thus, when the government’s attempts at extracting this revenue base goes too far, as
was the case with the Stamp Act of 1765, one of Edmund Burke’s more notable adages finds
ready application: “When you drive him hard, the boar will surely turn upon the hunters.”22
A Brief History of the Original Tea Party
Before Men had tasted the Sweetness of Liberty, they desired a King. 23
Thomas Paine asserts, “[i]t is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of
sorrow; the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness
with which all American property is possessed.”24 Hence, those who are distant from the dagger,
or the serpents venom, possess sympathies -- toward those suffering from the same -- that prove
equally distant. Thus, it is usually left to those feeling the sting more directly to accurately
assess the extent of the original harm, and who are most adept at perceiving that harm’s
subsequent dangers. Many Colonists were reeling from an injurious sting, the sting of excessive
taxation. This suffering was an aftereffect of “[t]he Stamp Act enacted by the Parliament of
Great Britain in 1765.”25 This excessive taxation was not entirely unfamiliar to the British
themselves, however, as Adam Smith writes: “Such stamp duties as those in England upon cards
4
21 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 425, 428, 431 (1819)
22 Edmund Burke, The Portable Edmund Burke, Isaac Kramnick, ed. p. 256 (1999)
23 Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, trans. Richard Tuck, bk. 1, p. 285 (2005) (quoting Livy, emphasis in
the original)
24 Thomas Paine, Collected Works, p. 26 (1995)
25 Order by Judge Richard Posner, United States v. Hakeem El Bey, p.1 (U.C.D.D. February 20, 2015)

and dice, upon newspapers and pamphlets, etc, are properly taxes upon consumption; the final
payment falls upon such persons who use or consume such commodities.”26
Yet to discover that the issue of excessive taxation would, for the Colonists, provide the
genesis for the hostilities soon to come should -- for students of history in particular -- generate
little surprise. And while Englishman in their homeland carried the weight of a quite similar tax
burden, they at least had the ears of their representatives in return for their tax payments, whereas
the Colonists did not. Hence, it was the oppressive act of taxation without representation that
constituted the crux of the matter for the Colonists, rather than merely the taxes themselves.
Indeed, this lack of representation proved beyond unsettling for the settlers of this embryonic
nation. Just imagine the frustration that accompanied this experience; being forced to engage in
their political disputes across the expanse of a great ocean. Indeed, to effectually argue -- let
alone prevail in that argumentation -- with a despotic tyrant situated 4,000 miles away, waiting
upwards of six months for his reply,27 was an undertaking most exasperating to say the least.
It was Edmund Burke, an individual ranked among history’s greatest statesmen, who, in
the course of deliberating the history of England, observed that the “[t]he great contests for
freedom in this country were from the earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxes.”28 And
while Burke alludes to England in particular, his assertion finds ready application on a universal
scale. Yet taxes, as most would agree, constitute a rather necessary evil. And surely, there exists
a balance to be had; between the government’s burden to produce revenue, and the extent to
which the citizenry is called upon to shoulder that burden. Yet when the government seeks to
5
26 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, p. 931 (1994)
27 History.com, The Stamp Act (2015)
28 Edmund Burke, The Portable Edmund Burke, p. 261 (1999)

amass more than in just -- when they go too far -- those trained in law are most apt to “augur
misgovernment at a distance, and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.”29
Surely, the British government’s implementation of the Stamp Act, at least with respect to the
Colonists, breached these bounds of political decorum; they crossed a line and thus went too far.
Yet their government’s attitude toward America even after the Act was repealed, evidenced that
the British government would not be deterred from resurrecting quite similar taxation stratagems
in the future. Burke writes, “[a]fter the repeal of the Stamp Act, ‘the colonies fell,’ says this
assembly, ‘into their ancient state of unsuspecting confidence in the mother country.’”30 Which
swiftly brings to mind Livy’s adage that“[b]efore Men had tasted the Sweetness of Liberty, they
desired a King.”31 Nonetheless, these subsequent acts of taxation on the Colonists, who were, as
Parliament suggested, restfully lulled to sleep in their mother country’s arms, startled them to an
abrupt awakeness. They were, in truth, startled to alertness by the noxious fumes of a taxation
deemed noisome and odious. And it was the ensuing rage engendered by this injurious Tea Act
of 1773 which gave birth to the Colonists Tea Party movement in the first place.32 However,
most significantly, it was this abusive taxation that caused these fiery Patriots of New England to
be literally “up in arms” against their King.
The Tea Party was formed in 1773, eight years after the official “Stamp Act” of 1765, had
been repealed.33 After the original Stamp Act was repealed, however, power changed hands in
6
29 Id. at 263
30 Id. at 292
31 Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, trans. Richard Tuck, bk. 1, p. 285 (2005) (quoting Livy, emphasis in
the original)
32 History.com, The Stamp Act (2015)
33 Id.

the British Parliament and a new legislature moved in.34 These new wielders of power wished
not only to reenact the Stamp Act, but to actually make it more comprehensive.35 And in reaction
to what was, perhaps, a blatant act of spite, Bostonians revolted in masse, conveying their
outrage -- albeit in a manner rather novel -- on the evening of December 16th, 1773.36 It was on
that evening that Patriots donned the attire of Native Americans and subsequently boarded a ship
of England filled to the masts with tea.37 Once aboard, these Patriots facilitated their own Act,
the act of ensuring that “ninety thousand pounds of tea were thrown overboard.”38 And while
such modes of protest, in response to a taxation suffered equally by Englishmen and Colonists
alike, surely appeared extreme to many observers at the time, the Colonist’s justification for this
asserted “rebellion” was most prominently premised on the issue representation. Moreover, the
British government, seeking to recoup it immeasurable losses from the French and Indian War,
were now acting in a manner that appeared to disregard the colonists right to their own self-
generated prosperity.39 And it was one thing for the citizenry of England to fund a war that
directly served them, or at the least, a war which they entered voluntarily and with eyes wide-
open. Yet quite another to tax individuals, namely the Colonists, who resided outside the war-
making decisions, and thus had little involvement in entering the war to begin with, and stood to
receive little, if any, benefit from the generation of those hostilities thereafter. 40
7
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 See generally, Thomas Paine, Collected Works (1995)
40 Id.

It was John Locke who asserted; “whenever the power that is put in any hands for the
government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to other ends, and
made use of to impoverish, harass or subdue them to the arbitrary and regular commands of
those that have it, there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that use it are one or
many.”41 And it was becoming all too apparent to the Colonists that the power Locke alluded to,
particularly with regard to this wielder of power’s willingness to impoverish others, was
burgeoning. Yet, not only was it growing hideously powerful, it was rearing its ugly tyrannical
head -- straightway -- at the Colonists.
The antithesis of tyranny is, for many of history’s greatest political philosophers, a state
of virtue.42 For political theorists, however, as Montesquieu informs, a reference to the word
“virtue” alone constitutes political virtue, rather than Aristotle’s concept of a life well-lived, and
the necessary accompanying personal virtues of “temperance, courage and justice,” the very
attributes which enable an individual to achieve that higher life.43 With the engagement of his
quintessentially polymathic mind -- Aristotle was, after all, “the master of those who know”44 --
he was able to intellectually juggle, and thus effectually address, both the personal virtues as well
as those virtues of a political nature; and address these with astounding perspicacity. “[T]he
8
41 John Locke, The Second Treatise on Government, p. 105 (1921)
42 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent, trans. p. 43 (2010), John Locke, Second Treatise
on Government, pp. 7-8 (1921), Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, p. 13 (1993)
(That public virtue, which among the ancients was denominated by patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our
own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members) (see also Hugh
Trevor-Roper’s introduction to Gibbon, p. Lxxxviii, where he infers that Machiavelli’s concept of “public virtu”
provided the genesis from Gibbon’s, and perhaps other political philosophers of great renowns’ thoughts on the
matter. For instance, when one analyzes his Spirit of The Laws, he can readily deduce that Montesquieu was a great
fan of, and was thus appreciably influenced by Machiavelli’s work), Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica, De
Legibus, trans. Clinton Walker Keyes, bk. 2, sec. 11 (2000), Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans.
Benjamin Jowett, pp. 1180, 1270-71, 1271 (2001)
43 Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, p. 1143 (2001)
44 Dante Alighieri, The Inferno, trans. Dorothy Sayers, p. 94 (1949))

happy life” writes Aristotle “is the life according to virtue lived without impediment . . . And the
same principles of virtue and vice are characteristic of cities and of constitutions.”45 “Thus the
courage, justice, and wisdom of a state have the same form and nature as the qualities which give
the individual who possesses them the name of just, wise, or temperate.”46 Yet, in moving
beyond the analogy of personal virtues as applied to the state, Aristotle asserts that “the state or
political community,” like an adept archer, “aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and
at the highest good.”47 And as for legislators, Aristotle asserts that “the salvation of the
community is the common business of them all.”48 Indeed, for Aristotle “virtue must be the care
of the state.”49 Thus, those contributing to the good of the state are deemed to possess “political
virtue.”50 But as for the role of a government’s preservation interest in society, an element of
foremost significance in Montesquieu’s conception of political virtue, Aristotle descants; “the
mere establishment of a democracy is not the only or principal business of the legislator, or of
those who wish to create such a state.”51 Rather,
a far greater difficulty is the preservation of it. The legislator should therefore endeavor
to have a firm foundation according to the principles already laid down concerning the
preservation and destruction of states; he should guard against the destructive elements,
and should make laws, whether written or unwritten, which will contain all the
preservatives of states.52
9
45 Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, p. 1220 (2001)
46 Id. at 1278
47 Id. at 1127
48 Id. at 1180
49 Id. at 1188
50 Id. at 1189
51 Id. at 1270
52 Id. at 1270-71 (emphasis mine)

Significantly, Aristotle states that the foremost attribute of an exemplary government “is not that
which will give the greatest amount of democracy or oligarchy, but that which will make them
last longest.”53 And it would be nearly three hundred years later that Cicero would, when
addressing the laws instituted by government, assert that these actions are to be established for
"the safety of citizens, the preservation of states, and the tranquility and happiness of human
life.”54 Hence, as is the case with Montesquieu, Locke, Cicero, Gibbon, Machiavelli and
numerous others, the preservation of the state stands as paramount in Aristotle’s deliberations on
government.55 Therefore, rather than the more individualized focus on a life well-lived, “political
virtue” is concerned with a more encompassing passion; the desire to see one’s society
preserved.56 Hence, the possession of political virtue entails a concern for, above all else,
ensuring that one’s society survives, and if possible thrives, for the many years -- and perhaps
even centuries -- to come.57 And while it may be the case that the British satisfied, to a certain
extent, this criterion of virtue for their own nation -- as they were clearly attempting to raise
revenue for their country’s preservation and continuance -- they were doing so at the expense of
a populace that was still ranked among its own citizenry. And this largely diminishes, if not
10
53 Id. at 1271
54 Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica, De Legibus, trans. Clinton Walker Keyes, bk 2, sec. 11 (2000) (emphasis
mine)
55 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent, trans. p. 43 (2010), John Locke, The Second
Treatise on Government, pp. 7-8 (1921), Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, p. 13
(1993) (That public virtue, which among the ancients was denominated by patriotism, is derived from a strong sense
of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members) (see also
Hugh Trevor-Roper’s introduction to Gibbon, p. Lxxxviii, where he infers that Machiavelli’s concept of “public
virtu” provided the genesis from Gibbon’s, and perhaps other political philosophers of great renowns’ thoughts on
the matter. For instance, when one analyzes his Spirit of The Laws, he can readily deduce that Montesquieu was a
great fan of, and was thus appreciably influenced by Machiavelli’s work), Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica, De
Legibus, trans. Clinton Walker Keyes, bk. 2, sec. 11 (2000), Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans.
Benjamin Jowett, pp. 1180, 1270-71, 1271 (2001)
56 Id.

entirely negates, that same virtue which Aristotle, Montesquieu, Cicero, Smith, Gibbon, or any
other great political philosopher of renown, had in mind.58 And when we add Locke’s poignant
assertion into the mix, that “[e]veryone as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his
station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition,
ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on
an offender, take away or impair the life or what tends the preservation of the life, the liberty, the
health, limb, or goods of another,”59 the foregoing assertion is greatly buttressed. Thus, Locke
informs that political virtue requires not merely seeking to preserve those within our own
nation’s boundaries, but includes as well “the rest of mankind.”60 More aptly, Locke promulgates
that “the fundamental law of nature [is] the preservation of mankind.”61 In echoing Locke’s
sentiments, Montesquieu asserts that “[a]ll governments have the same general end, which is that
of preservation.”62 Moreover, he states that “[w]e should love our country, not so much on our
own account, as out of regard to the community.”63 Yet to drive this point home with even greater
force, Montesquieu proclaims: “If I knew of something that could serve my nation but would
ruin another, I would not propose it to my prince, for I am first a man and only then a
11
58 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent, trans. p. 43 (2010), Edward Gibbon, The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, p. 13 (1993) (That public virtue, which among the ancients was
denominated by patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of
the free government of which we are members) (see also Hugh Trevor-Roper’s introduction to Gibbon, p. Lxxxviii,
where he infers that Machiavelli’s concept of “public virtu” provided the genesis from Gibbon’s, and perhaps other
political philosophers of great renowns’ thoughts on the matter. For instance, when one analyzes his Spirit of The
Laws, he can readily deduce that Montesquieu was a great fan of, and was thus appreciably influenced by
Machiavelli’s work), Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica, De Legibus, trans. Clinton Walker Keyes, bk. 2, sec. 11
(2000), Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, pp. 1180, 1270-71, 1271 (2001)
59 John Locke, The Second Treatise on Government, pp. 7-8 (1921)
60 Id.
61 Id. at 72
63 Id. at 44

Frenchman . . . because I am necessarily a man, and only accidentally am I French.”64 Here, it
may additionally be added -- by the pen of that prodigy of international law -- “we are to
prefer . . . a public good before a private one.”65 And, in a reverberation of the foregoing
sentiments expressed by Montesquieu, Socrates, when “asked of what country he called himself,
said, ‘Of the world;’ for he considered himself an inhabitant and a citizen of the whole world.”66
So whether the Colonists were perceived as those within or without the nation of England, they
were certainly not residing under the virtue strictures that the aforementioned political
philosophers -- in some cases vehemently -- describe.
The British, however, failed not only in their political duty to exhibit virtue, they failed to
satisfy the criterion for liberty as well. It was, in fact, during this same historical epoch where
Edmund Burke asserts:
The liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which liberty is secured
by the equality of restraint. A constitution of things in which the liberty of no one man,
and no body of men, and no number of men, can find means to trespass on the liberty of
any person, or any description of persons, in that society.67
Burke goes on to posit, “[t]he moment will is set above reason and justice, in any community, a
great question may arise in sober minds, in what part or portion of the community that dangerous
dominion of will may be the least mischievously placed.”68 And it would be this very same will
gone awry that would devolve upon the Colonists, causing them to suffer the full force of this
will’s mischievous deviation.
12
64 Charles de Montesquieu, Pensees et Fragments Inedits (1899)
65 Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, trans. Richard Tuck, bk. 1, p. 215 (2005)
66 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tusculanarum Disputationum, vol. v, p. 108 (1892)
67 Edmund Burke, The Portable Edmund Burke, Isaac Kramnick, ed. p. 542 (1999)
68 Id. (emphasis in the original)

Thus the ideal set forth by history’s greatest political sages is that Government, rather
than existing to ensure that one or more of its own entities -- or appendages -- survives, exists
rather to preserve the survival of its nation as a whole, and hence the preservation of its citizenry
as well.69 Not surprisingly, beyond mere survival -- which is not so easily obtained -- a politically
virtuous government will wish both its nation and its populace to flourish and prosper, as the two
are found to be ineluctably intertwined.70 Thus, when a government becomes corrupted in that
preeminent virtuous purpose, it becomes, like those robots gone awry in more recent doomsday
movies, a self-justifying entity. For instance, in the movie I, Robot,71 robots were programmed
to serve the greater good of mankind. However, these robots ultimately developed an auxiliary
system of their own, one that ensured their continued survival, in spite of whatever deleterious
effects eventuated for mankind.72 Hence, as is the case with the foregoing “out of control” robots
scenario, government entities such as the IRS find themselves sorely tempted to seek the
preservation of their own life, even at the cost of non-governmental organizations, or its nation’s
citizenry as a whole. Yet, as “Plato observed, that which is the Bond of States, is the Care of the
public Good, and that which destroys them is the minding only of one’s private Advantage;
therefore it concerns both the State and private Men, to prefer the Interest of the public to that of
13
69 See Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, trans. Richard Tuck, bk. 1, p. 346 (2005) (I esteem it better, even
from private Men, that the State in general flourish, though they themselves do not thrive in it, that that they should
flourish in their Affairs, and the Public suffer. For let a Man’s private affairs be never so prosperous, yet if his
Country be lost, he must perish with it) (quoting Pericles in Thucydides) (emphasis in the original)
70 Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, p. 1220 (2001) (“the happy life” writes
Aristotle “is the life according to virtue lived without impediment . . . And the same principles of virtue and vice are
characteristic of cities and constitutions.”), Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, trans. Richard Tuck, bk. 1,
p. 347 (2005) (quoting Plato)
71 Sony Pictures, Based on the book series by Isaac Asimov (2004)
72 Id.

particular Persons.”73 For this paper’s purpose, rather than speaking of persons, we may readily
insert the word “organizations.” Thus a nation’s guardians, hence its legislators, must resolutely
guard against these private advantages. And as for these private advantages, Grotius proffers;
I esteem it better, even from private Men, that the State in general flourish, though they
themselves do not thrive in it, than that they should flourish in their Affairs, and the
Public suffer. For let a Man’s private affairs be never so prosperous, yet if his Country be
lost, he must perish with it.74
Thus when government entities or appendages act in such an untowardly self-preserving manner,
they depart from their original purpose, and thus leave the realm of political virtue altogether.
Which calls forth Edmund Burke’s astute observation that “the purpose of government is to
restrain man,”75 and begs for an expedient application of the same. For “[i]n framing a
government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you
must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to
control itself.”76 Thus, it remains up to the governed to ensure that government can effectually
restrain itself.77
A Brief History of the Modern Tea Party
Montesquieu cautions, that “constant experience shows us that every man invested with
power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.”78 The modern Tea Party,
14
73 Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, trans. Richard Tuck, bk. 1 p. 347 (2005) (quoting Plato, emphasis in
the original)
74 Id.
75 Edmund Burke, The Portable Edmund Burke, p. 542 (1999)
76 THE FEDERALIST, NO. 51 (James Madison)
77 Id.
78 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent trans. p. 137 (2010)

like it namesake of old, is a political group not only engaged in, but even embroiled in protest.79
The modern Tea Party is not fond of what they presently observe in America’s government, and
wish to see that government return -- posthaste -- to its original, more virtuous, purpose and
form.80 And this original purpose is, for Tea Party groups, most aptly reflected by the state of our
Nation’s government prior to FDR’s New Deal.81 Thus, their members deem themselves “strict
constitutionalists,” not wishing the government’s involvement in anything that is not explicitly
authorized by the Constitution.82 And in order to effectuate their plan of setting government
aright, the Tea Party aggressively endorses candidates that it feels will adhere, with vigilant
circumscription, to its ideology.83 And surely, the Tea Party has proved itself worthy of our
respect -- if not utter admiration. As it happens, if one were to underestimate the strength of the
Tea Party movement in American politics this would, for politicians in particular, constitute an
irrecoverable misstep. These organizations are, to an appreciable degree, king makers in the
arena of American politics. Moreover, they enable unlikely underdogs -- through their
efficacious donor financing engine -- to prevail over even the most established, thus often
imbedded, career politician. And while they may assist in facilitating the success of numerous
Republican candidates over their Democrat rivals, those most fearful of the Tea Party’s
unrelenting gaze are undoubtedly incumbents exuding moderate Republican sentiments.
But what precisely is a “strict constitutionalist,” at least as it applies to the Tea Party’s
viewpoint? Perhaps certain comments from Senator Rand Paul will provide us with the
15
79 Kate Zernike, In Justice Confirmation Hearings, Echoes of the Tea Party (July 2, 2010)
80 Id.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 Id.

necessary clarity to elucidate the term. For, as it happens, the Tea Party “has found as its tribune
Rand Paul,” the junior Senator -- and now Presidential candidate -- from Kentucky, who presents
as their foremost, and assuredly most visible, herald.84 Senator Paul, along with the lion’s share
of “Tea Party supporters, believe that much of what the federal government regulates should be
left to the states, where voters hold a shorter leash.”85 Indeed, it is for this reason that;
they embrace a strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment, which says that the powers
not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution “are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.” And some believe that the 17th Amendment, commonly
known as one of the “progressive” amendments, was wrong when it assigned the election
of United States senators directly to the voters. The Constitution put that power with the
state legislatures.86
Senator Paul “argues that Congress could balance the budget if it just got rid of all the programs
that are not authorized by the Constitution.”87 Thus,“the unifying philosophy for [Tea Party]
groups across the country is a belief that the nation can solve its problems — primarily its
economic problems, which is what its supporters care most about — if lawmakers stick to a strict
interpretation of the Constitution.”88 In truth, Senator “Paul says he would not vote for any
legislation not specifically authorized by the Constitution.”89 And in something called the “Tea
Party Manifesto created by thousands of people voting online,”90 Tea Party members require
their candidates to identify for each and “every piece of legislation . . .‘the specific provision of
16
84 Id.
85 Id.
86 Id.
87 Id.
88 Id.
89 Id.
90 Id.

the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.’”91 Unsurprisingly,
“[t]hey campaign for candidates who promote themselves as “constitutional conservatives.””92
The center of the Tea Party argument is that Congress has usurped powers it was never
granted in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which contains what is commonly
referred to as the commerce clause. The section mentions roughly 20 items, including the
power to collect taxes, to pay debts, to “provide for the common defense and welfare of
the United States,” and to regulate commerce “with foreign nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”93
Based on the Tea Party’s lights, “everything went out of control with the New Deal as Congress,
trying to ease the pain of the Great Depression and prevent another, passed legislation that
progressives had been pushing for years, which included the regulation of banks and the
establishment of a minimum wage and Social Security.”94
The Constitutional Tipping Point: What the IRS Did to the Tea Party
Like any other political organization, the various Tea Party groups throughout the nation
can only flourish successfully through donations. And to attract these donations, political
organizations, like religious and other various non-profits, seek 501(c)(3) tax exempt status with
the IRS. This status also enables donors to write off donations to these organizations, and
thereby reduce their respective tax liabilities. This is, in essence, the very approval status that
enables a political organization to get its “feet off the ground,” as well as continue to run
effectually. Hence, any impediment to this tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status will not only hinder its
success but -- of far greater significance -- places that very organization’s survival in a state of
utter peril as well.
17
91 Id.
92 Id.
93 Id.
94 Id.

A recent lawsuit filed by attorney Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center
for Law and Politics and an individual who has argued twelve cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court,95 alleges six counts against the IRS for its discriminatory behavior toward more than
twenty Tea Party political organizations sprinkled throughout this nation.96
In summary, the counts allege that,
Defendants unlawfully delayed and thereby effectively denied approval of
Plaintiffs’ applications for tax exempt status by means of a comprehensive, pervasive,
invidious and organized scheme that purposefully established unnecessary and
burdensome inquiries and scrutiny of Plaintiffs’ applications based solely upon
Plaintiffs’ political viewpoints (or Defendants’ assumption of Plaintiffs’ viewpoints,
based on their organizational names). Defendants’ unlawful conduct included but was
not limited to excessive scrutiny of Plaintiffs’ applications by requiring donor names,
listing of issues important to Plaintiffs’ organizations, including their positions on
such issues, the contents of communications between the organizations and legislative
bodies, the applicant’s criteria for membership, volunteer names and the political
affiliations of persons associated with the organizations, all in violation of Plaintiffs’
rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the
Administrative Procedure Act.97
The complaint further alleges Plaintiffs Withdrew Tax-Exempt Applications Due to Unlawful
IRS Conduct.98 And as for remedies;
Plaintiffs additionally seek injunctive relief in the form of a permanent injunction
prohibiting all Defendants, and all those in active concert with them, from unlawfully
discriminating against Plaintiffs, including their officers, directors, and members, for
disparate treatment and particular scrutiny based on the unconstitutional criteria of
political viewpoint or association, all in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First
and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Administrative
Procedure Act. Plaintiffs Greenwich Tea Party Patriots of South Jersey, Inc., Greater
Phoenix Tea Party Patriots, Unite.99
18
95 Jaysekulow.com (April 9, 2015)
96 Jay Sekulow, et al., Tea Party Complaint, Case 1:13-cv-00777 (DCDC, May 29, 2013)
97 Id. at 5-6
98 Id. at 9
99 Id. at 6

FACTUALALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs are all organizations that applied for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) tax-exempt
status with the IRS between 2009 and 2011.100 Each Plaintiff submitted to the IRS all
requisite documentation and information in order for the IRS to determine that
Plaintiff’s application for tax-exempt status. Each Plaintiff complied in a timely
manner with all reasonable requests for information from the IRS.101 After filing their
initial applications, all Plaintiffs received letters from the IRS requesting additional
information that the IRS claimed was necessary in order to reach a determination of
their applications for tax exemption. The IRS issued the foregoing letter requests to
Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs’ political viewpoints (or Defendants’ perception of such
viewpoints based on Plaintiffs’ names), and not based on the applicable criteria set
forth in tax-exempt laws or Treasury Regulations.”102
It was further alleged that “[v]arious employees and officials within the Department of the
Treasury inspected and/or disclosed the information produced by the above-identified Plaintiffs
in response to the IRS’s requests for additional information.”103 Subsequently,
[o]n May 14, 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
released the report of an IRS audit it initiated based on concerns expressed by
Congress and the media about the targeting of certain conservative political
organizations seeking tax-exempt status. TIGTA reported that the IRS, both before
and during the 2012 election cycle, had done the following:
(a) targeted tax-exempt applications for additional scrutiny and inquiry based on
“inappropriate criteria”—including organizational names and policy positions;
(b) significantly delayed the processing of these applications, keeping them open
over twice the length of time for processing of other applications requiring
additional tax-exempt applications; and
(c) requested additional information from these applicants that was entirely
unnecessary and irrelevant to the IRS’s determination regarding the
organizations’ tax-exempt status.104
19
100 Id. at 11
101 Id.
102 Id. at 12
103 Id.
104 Id. at 12-13

At least as early as February 2010, the IRS began identifying applications for
additional scrutiny (including the issuance of letter requests for additional
information) from organizations seeking tax exemption whose names included the
terms “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” “9/12,” or other political-sounding names, such as “We
the People,” or “Take Back the Country.” All applications from organizations whose
names included the terms “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12” were discriminatorily
singled out for additional scrutiny by the IRS. The IRS internally referred to such
applications as “Tea Party cases.” At least as early as April 2010, Defendant Paz,
then-Acting Manager, EO Technical Unit, was aware of the selective targeting of and
discrimination against the “Tea Party cases.”105
The complaint further alleges that “[t]he letters issued to “Tea Party” applicants, including
Plaintiffs herein, requested such inappropriate and irrelevant information as”106 the
following:
(1) donor names; (2) a list of issues that are important to the applicant organization, as
well as the organization’s position regarding those issues; (3) the type of
conversations and discussions between members and participants at organization
activities; (4) whether the organization’s officer(s) or director(s) have run or plan to
run for public office; (5) the political affiliation of the officer(s) or director(s) of the
organization; (6) information regarding the employment (other than for the
organization) of the organization’s officer(s) or director(s); and (7) information
regarding the activities of other organizations with which the applicant has a
connection. At least one Plaintiff herein was asked to provide the names of
individuals who volunteered with the organization. For many “Tea Party” applicants,
including several Plaintiffs herein, the issuance of these letters was delayed until a
full year or more after the organizations initially filed their applications for tax-
exempt status. 107
Prima Facie “Tea Party Specific” Targeting
Within foregoing complaint, there is clear evidence that the IRS targeted numerous
Tea Party groups specifically. For instance:
In or around March, 2012, IRS officials and employees created a list of template
questions to be included in future letters requesting additional information from “Tea
20
105 Id. at 13 (emphasis added)
107 Id. at 15-16 (emphasis added)

Party” applicants. This list was provided to members of the Guidance Unit in
Washington, D.C., and still included inappropriate and unconstitutional requests for
donor information. 108
Plaintiffs San Fernando Valley Patriots, Inc., and Portage County Tea Party, Inc.,
withdrew their applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status based on the
unconstitutional requests for information issued by the IRS and the IRS’s intentional
delay in processing their applications. Plaintiffs Linchpins of Liberty and Patriots
Educating Concerned Americans Now (PECAN), as of the date of filing of this
Complaint, still await determinations on their applications for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
status, each of which has been pending in excess of 270 days.109
On May 10, 2013, the IRS publicly acknowledged that it inappropriately and
unjustifiably targeted conservative political groups for tax scrutiny during the 2012
election cycle. Defendant Lerner publicly acknowledged the IRS’s discriminatory
treatment of the Tea Party organizations, expressly admitting, on behalf of the IRS,
that the applications of groups whose names included “Tea Party” or “Patriot” were
singled out and subjected to additional IRS scrutiny. The extensive delay in
processing their applications for tax-exempt status has cost Plaintiffs significant time
and money that they could have been using to further their exempt purposes.
Defendants’ unconstitutional treatment of Plaintiffs based on their names and political
viewpoints, and Defendants’ conduct in issuing unconstitutional requests for
information from Plaintiffs, has substantially and materially interfered with
Plaintiffs’ abilities to engage in effective advocacy and other expressive activities. 110
What proves most troubling about these allegations is the fact that “[t]he conduct of Defendants
complained of herein has had a chilling effect on the willingness of potential donors and
grantors to provide donations and grants to Plaintiffs.”111
21
108 Id. at 16
109 Id. at 17
111 Id. (emphasis added)

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
(Violations of the First Amendment – Freedom of Speech – Bivens Action)
The Supreme Court, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), recognized a private damages action against federal
officials for constitutional torts committed by such officials while acting under color of
federal authority. 112
COUNT II
(Violations of the First Amendment – Freedom of Association – Bivens Action)
By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Miller, Lerner, Paz and the Unknown Named IRS
Officials In Their Individual Capacities While Acting Under Color of Federal Authority
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Plaintiffs’ right to freely
associate with others of their choosing for the purposes of engaging in protected speech
or religious activities. 113
COUNT III
(Violations of the Fifth Amendment – Equal Protection under the Due Process Clause
– Bivens Action)
“The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects persons against
the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law and forbids the
federal government from denying the equal protection of the laws.”114 “The Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees persons the right to be free from
illegal discrimination and selective prosecution.” 115
Defendants Miller, Lerner, Paz, and the Unknown Named IRS Officials unlawfully
deprived Plaintiffs of their Fifth Amendment rights in connection with and arising from
their applications for tax-exempt status by imposing upon such applications an
unconstitutional requirement of heightened scrutiny, issuing unconstitutional and overly
intrusive requests for information as described herein, delaying the processing of
Plaintiffs’ applications on the basis of Plaintiffs’ political positions, and failing to prevent
such conduct by other IRS employees under their direct supervision and control while
fully aware of such unconstitutional misconduct. The disparate treatment of Plaintiffs
22
112 Id. at 19
113 Id. at 20 (emphasis in the original)
114 Id. at 21
115 Id.

based on their conservative political viewpoint was a result of a discriminatory purpose
on the part of Defendants. 116
COUNT IV
(Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act)
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides a cause of action for persons
aggrieved by final actions of an agency of the United States, or officers thereof while
acting in an official capacity, that have been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed, as well as agency actions, findings, and conclusions that are contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity. The United States has waived its
sovereign immunity pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 in actions seeking relief other than money
damages and stating a claim that an agency of the United States and/or officers thereof
acted or failed to act in an official capacity. The Internal Revenue Service is an agency of
the United States for purposes of the APA. 117
COUNT V
(Violations of the Internal Revenue Code – 26 U.S.C. § 7428)
By Plaintiffs Still Awaiting Determination of 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Status Against
Defendants United States and the Secretary of the Treasury in an Official Capacity
The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 81 above are incorporated by reference herein as
if fully set out. 26 U.S.C. § 7428 creates a cause of action for organizations whose
applications for a determination with respect to qualification for tax-exempt status under
26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) have not been acted upon within 270 days of the organization’s
request for such determination. 118
COUNT VI
(Violations of the Internal Revenue Code - 26 U.S.C. § 6103)
By Plaintiffs Who Produced Return Information to the IRS Against Defendants
United States and the IRS. 26 U.S.C. § 6103 provides that “[r]eturns and return
information shall be confidential” and may be inspected and/or disclosed only as
specifically authorized under Section 6103. 26 U.S.C. § 7431 creates a cause of action
for any taxpayer whose tax return information is knowingly or by reason of negligence
inspected or disclosed by an officer or employee of the United States in violation of any
provision of 26 U.S.C. § 6103. 119
In the course of litigating these allegations, and concomitantly observing the Justice
Department’s inability to seek justice in the process, Sekulow has since concluded that “the
23
116 Id. at 21-22 (emphasis added)
117 Id. at 23

Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service is institutionally incapable of self-
correction.”120
More Recent IRS Revelations
As “chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes
oversight of the Internal Revenue Service, Rep. Peter Roskam is familiar with Lois Lerner’s
legacy.”121 Moreover, Representative Roskam “knows how interesting her career was before she,
as head of the IRS exempt-organizations division, directed the suppression of conservative
advocacy groups by delaying and denying them the tax-exempt status that was swiftly given to
comparable liberal groups.”122 Furthermore, it was during a 2013 televised committee hearing
that Representative Roskam,
told the story of Al Salvi, who in 1996 was the Republican Senate candidate against then-
Rep., now-Sen. Dick Durbin. Democrats filed charges with the Federal Election
Commission against Salvi’s campaign, charges that threatened to dominate the
campaign’s final weeks. Salvi telephoned the head of the FEC’s Enforcement Division,
who he says told him: “Promise me you will never run for office again, and we’ll drop
this case.” So said Lois Lerner. After Salvi lost, FBI agents visited his elderly mother,
demanding to know, concerning her $2,000 contribution to her son’s campaign, where
she got “that kind of money.” When a federal court held that the charges against Salvi
were spurious, the FEC’s losing lawyer was Lois Lerner.123
As for the more recent abusive tactics engaged in by the IRS -- in its targeting of conservative
organizations -- Roskham posited that, at the end of the day, “[t]he court probably will rule that
24
120 Jay Sekulow, No Justice from the Justice Department (April 3, 2015)
121 George Will, Looking to Stop the Next IRS Scandal (March 4, 2015)
122 Id. (emphasis mine)
123 Id.

the IRS acted contrary to law. If so, the IRS certainly will not have acted contrary to its pattern
of corruption in the service of the current administration.”124
In a letter dated January 23, 2015 Representative Roskam cited further problems with the
IRS, although this time the Congressman was more concerned with their incompetencies rather
than the more constitutionally repugnant suppression of various Tea Party groups.125 A lack of
competency is if great concern, however, because -- as is the case with corruption -- it
undermines the populace’s faith in its government. Again, as Chairman of the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Oversight, Roskam asserted that he was “writing to inquire about the Internal
Revenue Service’s decision to hire contractor CGI Federal to provide “critical functions” related
to the “ACA Program-Wide Consolidated Release Management Support.”126
As you know, in January 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services fired CGI
Federal after its disastrous rollout of the HealthCare.gov website. Shortly thereafter,
Massachusetts followed suit, firing CGI for its poor performance developing the state
health exchange website. Governor Deval Patrick called CGI Federal a “disappointing
partner.” In August 2014, Vermont also fired CGI Federal for its “unacceptable” work
creating its state exchange website." I am concerned that just months after the HHS and
Massachusetts firings, the IRS selected the same contractor to provide critical technology
services related to the administration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.127
Here Representative Roskam was attempting “[t]o help the Subcommittee understand [the IRS’]
decision to spend $4.46 million of taxpayer funds on CGI Federal’s services.”128 And as for why
the IRS would exhibit what many would assert to be “gross incompetence” in this matter is a
question that few, I am certain, can answer. On its face, however, it leaves a reasonable person to
25
124 Id.
125 Peter Roskam, Letter to IRS Commissioner (January 23, 2015)
126 Id.
127 Id.
128 Id.

deduce either one of two things; (1) that the IRS is beyond the pale incompetent in its everyday,
common sense, functioning, or, (2) that there is some corrupt countervailing incentive in
existence, leading them to hire this one particular -- glaringly inept -- contractor.
Senator Ted Cruz’s Crusade to Abolish the IRS
Senator Ted Cruz stands foremost among Congressmen seeking the IRS’ abolition.129
Senator Cruz reasons thus:
The IRS has not honored its trust with the American people. That the Obama
administration has demonstrated a willingness to use the machinery of government to
target their political enemies . . . It’s a manifestation of too much power in the federal
government. When the government has that much power in our individual lives, it’s an
invitation to being abused.130
This sounds like a fulfillment of Montesquieu’s prediction “that every man invested with power
is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.”131 Significantly, Senator Cruz
observes that a consequence of “set[ting] aside the constraints of the law for partisan ends,” is
that “the people’s trust in the integrity of government has been undermined.”132 Now the extent
of President Obama’s involvement in the IRS scandal, if any, remains to be seen. However, as
Commander and Chief, of the armed forces in particular -- the very organization which provided
the impetus for taxation in the first instance -- surely, the buck stops with him. 133 In truth, the
quintessential characteristic of a great leader is evidenced by that individual’s willingness to take
complete and absolute responsibility for the actions of those situated beneath him, for as he is the
26
129 Fox News, Senator Ted Cruz Leading the Charge on Abolishing the IRS: GOP Lawmaker makes a case for Flat
Tax (June 3, 2013)
130 Id.
132 Id.
133 President Harry Truman’s desk sign read “The Buck Stops Here”

head, he must remain cognizant of the fact that no one is better situated than he to change the
manner and course of his employees’ or servants’ actions. And it is, most understandably, when
leaders fail to embrace this responsibility required of them that the citizenry’s faith in their
government erodes. Hence, this paramount theme of a lost faith in our government continues.
There is, however, further evidence in existence, additional facts which leave this nation’s
citizenry questioning whether our present government remains worthy of our trust. Indeed, a
recent article by noted conservative media mogul Dr. James Dobson strikingly echoes the
foregoing concerns voiced by Senator Cruz. Shockingly, Dobson asserts that U.S. citizens have
“testified before Congress that their conservative organization's confidential donor list was
leaked to its ‘principal political opponent,’ which could be a felony.”134 Thus, in a reverberation
of Senator Cruz’s deductions, Dobson states:
The IRS has proven itself unworthy of our trust, and it must be kept in check. Acting IRS
Director Steven Miller, speaking under oath, told a congressional committee that he
didn’t know his low-level operatives were targeting more than 300 organizations -- all
conservative, many faith-based -- and denied or delayed their applications for non-profit
status. Our organization, Family Talk Action, was among them.135
In elaborating further on his own conservative non-profit organization’s roadblocks in achieving
501(c)(3) tax status, Dobson notes that “[t]he IRS took 19 months to grant our approval.”136
Nonetheless, in spite of the patently dilatory approval process aforementioned, their approval
postponement would have -- incontrovertibly -- gone on for a much longer period, but for this
organization’s willingness, and thus subsequent threat, to litigate. And bold assertions such as
these are only bolstered by the following:
27
134 James Dobson, IRS’Power To Tax is Also the Power to Destroy (June 11, 2013) (emphasis added)
135 Id.
136 Id.

The agent said she doubted that Family Talk Action’s application would be approved
because it sounded like a “partisan, right-wing group.” She elaborated, “You’re political
because you criticized President Obama when he was a candidate.” Our attorney told her
that was entirely untrue and said we would just have to litigate. Nine days later, our
application was magically approved. How many other organizations would have closed
their doors because they lacked the financial resources with which to fight for their free
speech?137
Surely, Dobson’s assertion that “[t]he IRS has proven itself unworthy of our trust, and it
must be kept in check“138 is a significant one. Yet, in his rhetoric, he stops short of the truest
mark; Dobson clearly does not go far enough. Reminded of Jay Sekulow’s prescient deduction
that “the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service is institutionally incapable of self-
correction,”139 one sees that this disease of corruption, adroitly elucidated in Sekulow’s
voluminous allegations, evidences that this disease permeates the IRS to the extent that any
necessary remedy lies well beyond a mere checkup. This is, in essence, a governmental tumor
that beckons to be extricated. Thus, to say that we should keep the IRS “in check” would be
analogous to the founders saying that we should have, in contemplation of their noisome and
oppressive circumstances, taken the same soft, appeasing, and acquiescent bearing with Great
Britain, and thus forgone the Revolution altogether. Yet, like the Founders of old, we have come
to a head with this leviathanic power. Hence, this power’s head must be cut off. Elsewise, rather
that heeding our stern threats or generous counsel, most assuredly proffered in vain, this segment
of our government will brazenly burgeon; into an organization even more powerful, noisome,
odious, and corrupt. Thus, to achieve anything less than IRS abolition would be to exemplify, as
28
138 Id.
139 Jay Sekulow, No Justice from the Justice Department (April 3, 2015)

Thomas Paine so aptly suggested, “the heart of a sycophant.”140 Surely, our present
circumstances require a Churchill rather than a Chamberlain.
Still, the concept of a paramount need for establishing trust in our government requires
further elaboration. Yet before this can be accomplished, the reader must be reminded of our
earlier treatment of political virtue as described by Montesquieu. For it so happens that
Machiavelli’s conception of virtue, which is, as summarized by Gibbon, “[t]hat public virtue
which among the ancients was denominated by patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our
own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are
members,”141 is quite similar. Hence, this definition proffered by Gibbon, echoing the
sentiments of Machiavelli,142 comports with Montesquieu’s sentiments on virtue described
earlier. Perhaps he even derived it from Machiavelli himself.
That the need for developing and sustaining the people’s trust in its government
constitutes one of government’s foremost objectives cannot be denied. Yet let us take this
assertion and apply it to the realm of currency, an issue Adam Smith deliberated about
extensively. 143 First, it can be readily, and quite plausibly asserted that a dollar is worth a dollar
only because we believe it thus.144 That this holds true is evidenced by the fact that our
government decided to remove the paper dollar from its gold standard back in 1934.145 Thus, a
29
140 Collected Writings, p. 27 (1995)
141 Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, p. 13 (1993)
142 Id. at Lxxxviii (where, in the introduction to Gibbon’s work, authored by Hugh Trevor-Roper, Machiavelli’s
thoughts are cited as a basis for the aforementioned quote by Gibbon)
143 See generally, Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1994)
144 Id.
145 George Selgin, The Rise and Fall of the Gold Standard in the United States, Policy Analysis, vol. 729, p. 16 (June
20, 2013)

dollar has ceased to be worth, in all actuality, a dollar. Hence, you may no longer exchange your
paper dollar at the bank for its equivalent in gold.146 And it was, in fact, shortly after the gold
standard was divorced from our nation’s paper currency that the government was then permitted
to print far more dollars than the currency value of the gold stored at Fort Knox -- where a great
majority of our nation’s gold supply is stored -- could back up.147 Thus the disparity between our
paper dollar and the amount of gold previously required to support its value continued to distend.
Yet it was not until the early 1970’s that the disconnect between gold and the U.S. dollar would
prove utterly complete.148
The repercussions from departing from the gold standard are as follows: If we, or the
world at large, were to believe that the American dollar was worth a mere thirty-three cents, then
that is the value it would be accorded. Nonetheless, there remains more to the story beyond the
fact that it is this faith in our currency that buttresses its value. For one soon discovers that this
numismatic confidence is ineluctably intertwined with the faith of this nation’s citizenry in its
government. It is unsurprising then to discover that in times when the populace’s faith in our
government erodes, we find innumerable individuals fleeing to gold for solace; through
investments in rare coinage, or bullion in the form of coin. Contemporaneous with such investor
proclivities, this is also the time when the value of the dollar declines -- appreciably -- on
international currency exchanges. Yet, as it happens, this depreciation in the value of the nation’s
currency -- if generated by actions of our government that cause a “crisis of confidence” among
its citizenry -- may effectually be argued to constitute a “taking” by our government. And any
30
146 Id.
147 Id.
148 Id. at 17

taking by our government, which is found to be unaccompanied by just compensation, is deemed
repugnant to our Constitution.149 Yet this “crisis of confidence” argument can, and must, be
taken beyond mere prudential concerns for property, for there is a considerable moral argument
to be made here as well.
When an individual deliberates Aristotle’s views on the nature and the purpose of
government,150 he sees that the argument put forth by the “Philosopher,” as Thomas Aquinas
liked to put it,151 stands far afield Locke’s prudential one.152 Indeed, Aristotle’s concern with any
failure in government is based largely on moral considerations, rather than those that are largely
economic. Yet how does this concern for morality tie-in with a loss of faith in our government
and its potential deleterious effects on our nation’s currency? Well, if one considers the patent
failure of morality inherent to an utter failure of government, it is not then challenging to
extrapolate a moral argument even from the depreciation of our nation’s coinage, particularly
when this depreciation places our government’s very existence at risk. For surely, it is immoral
for a government to allow itself to fail. And if a lack of confidence in our government causes its
currency to depreciate, and this depreciation leads to a failure in that government’s ability to
exist -- let alone flourish -- then this surely constitutes a moral failure as well. Thus, we see how
these two issues, Aristotle’s appreciable interest in morality and a Locke’s prudential concern for
property,153 are readily discovered -- under a “crisis of confidence in our government” analysis --
to be ineluctably intertwined.
31
149 U.S. Const. amend. V, sec. 4
150 Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett , pp. 1180, 1270-71, 1271, 1296 (2001)
151 See generally, Thomas Aquinas, Treatise on Law, trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (2009)
152 See generally, John Locke, The Second Treatise on Government (1921)
153 Id.

Thus we see how it is of paramount importance to secure the citizenry’s faith in its
government. Not merely for the sake of uplifting moral, or to cement -- and keep secure -- the
fidelity of the populace to its nation. Rather, such faith is a requirement for our nation’s very
continuance, let alone flourishing, and thus demands that it be situated amongst the most sacred
of political echelons; and thus placed with the political virtue heretofore described.154 For the
continuous erosion of the citizenry’s faith in its government can readily lead to that nation’s
downfall. And this outcome is most evidenced, and thus taught, by a study of Rome’s decline,155
something Winston Churchill discovered during an inchoate period in his political life. 156
Moreover, the significance of a citizen’s faith -- and thus confidence -- in its government can be
further culled from an opinion authored by one who is arguably the most celebrated of all
American jurists. Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall designated to preeminence the “magic of the
word CONFIDENCE”157 in relation to the citizenry’s faith in its government. The Chief Justice,
with considerable perspicuity asserts that “[t]axation . . . does not necessarily and unavoidably
destroy.”158 Yet “[t]o carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which
would banish that confidence which is essential to all Government.”159
32
154 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent trans., p. 43 (2010)
155 See generally Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1-3 (1993)
156 See generally Richard Toye, Churchill’s Empire:The World that Made him and the World He Made (2010) (some
have even suggested, with hyperbole no doubt, that the only book Churchill ever read was Gibbon’s Decline and
Fall of Rome).
157 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 431 (1819)
158 Id.
159 Id.

Further Evidence of the IRS’ Pronounced Incompetencies
For the IRS, rehiring troubled employees is nearly common practice:
Of the more than 7,000 former employees the IRS hired between January 2010 and
September 2013, 824 of them were found to have prior performance and conduct
issues, a new oversight report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
found. TIGTA reviewed a random sample of more than 300 employees who had
conduct or performance issues in the past and found that 20% had developed new
issues during their second go-round. Problem behaviors have included employees who
willfully failed to file their taxes, gained unauthorized access to taxpayer information,
abused the agency's leave policy, misused IRS property, falsified official forms, did a
bad job or had behavioral or legal problems off-duty, such as alcoholism or
bankruptcy.160
Significantly, "[b]ased on the types of prior performance and conduct issues we identified,
rehiring certain employees presents increased risk to the IRS and taxpayers,"161 deduced J.
Russell George, speaking from his vantage point as Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration. One of those risks includes “the increased likelihood that these unreliable IRS
employees will disseminate confidential taxpayer information where they should not,”162 an
action that is not only prohibited by all that is good and is just but, as Dobson asserts, perhaps
even “could be a felony.”163 As further evidence of the IRS’ willingness to “look the other way”
when confronted with employee incompetencies, the following scenario provides an effectual
example: “A file was explicitly stamped "Do Not Rehire," as the employee deserted her post for
33
160 Jeanne Sahadi, IRS Problem Employees (Feb. 05, 2015)
161 Id.
163 Id.

312 hours.164 Nonetheless, in the face of the IRS’ considerable laxity regarding employee
competencies “the person was rehired anyway.”165
The Tea Party’s Ongoing Troubles
The evidence presented heretofore leads not just any reasonable observer to deduce, but
perhaps even the most devout Democrat to conclude, that the IRS intentionally precluded several
Tea Party groups from qualifying for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status with the IRS. These political
groups were assaulted by the government’s weapons of strategic dilatory behavior, invasive
questioning, and various other infuriating road blocks. Unsurprisingly, as Jay Sekulow’s six-
count complaint for the twenty-five Tea Party and similarly structured conservative groups
makes patent, these delays constituted a formidable deterrent.166 It must be of little surprise then
to learn that many conservative groups, utterly exasperated by these unending delay’s and
cumbersome informational requests, simply “threw in the towel,”ultimately giving up on what
had become a most “maddening” process.167 Yet this despair of hope in ever achieving tax-
exempt status is precisely the reaction that any neutral observer would expect. But were these
actions taken by a Democrat dominated -- at least among the executives -- IRS merely a
collection of coincidences? Did the Democrats in charge inadvertently generate situations that
just so happened to adversely effect -- what many would suggest is -- their most formidable
political opponent. Or, conversely, was this a political stratagem employed with a concerted
effort, and the fullest apperception of its mischievous aftereffects? I would suggest, in concert
34
164 Id.
165 Id.
166 Jay Sekulow, et al., Tea Party Complaint, Case 1:13-cv-00777, p. 9 (DCDC, May, 29, 2013)
167 Id.

with the sentiments expressed by attorney Sekulow’s complaint, that this latter scenario presents
as the most probable one.168 Like the insurance company in John Grisham’s Rainmaker,169 the
IRS was hoping these Tea Party groups would eventually just give up and walk away. And while
they perhaps, unlike many insurance companies today, forwent a statistical analysis in their
calculus, even those possessing a paucity of common of sense could readily predict the response,
and thus the outcome for the numerous Tea Party groups aforementioned. And as James Dobson
so aptly states, “[h]ow many other organizations would have closed their doors because they
lacked the financial resources with which to fight for their free speech?”170
The modern Tea Party is deemed by most to be a political organization in a state of
rebellion.171 Thus, unsurprisingly, they are often perceived as a group residing on the very fringes
of American political discourse.172 Like them or not, however, they incontrovertibly possess the
right to be heard. Indeed, they have the right not only to exist and be heard, but even to thrive in
the American political community. For politics is like free speech, if you prohibit one group
from existing because of your disagreement with their ideologies, when there is a changing of the
partisan guards, the new political group in power will likely attempt to prohibit whatever group
-- particularly yours -- it deems problematic to its own success.
Yet I suspect this abuse, which is adroitly evinced by the foregoing Tea Party complaint,
is a symptom of problems within the IRS that are far more troublesome and expansive. Thus,
when an individual analyzes the extent of organizational disfunction and corruption that the IRS
35
168 Id. (see generally)
169 (1995)
170 James Dobson, IRS’Power to Tax is Also the Power to Destroy (June 11, 2013)
171 Kate Zernike, In Justice Confirmation Hearings, Echoes of the Tea Party (July 2, 2010)
172 Id.

abuse scandal evidences, that individual is quick to deduce that the power of the IRS has grown
far too large. As a consequence, this organization has grown beyond their capacity to self-
regulate. Which brings us back to Madison’s concern for a government’s ability to govern
itself.173 And, as none of us are Angels, this concern should be well-heeded.174 For these recent
experiences with the IRS may not constitute the first incident of abuse we have uncovered from
this bastion of bureaucracy. No, perhaps not the first, yet -- by far -- they are the worst.
The IRS has, over the course of its history, established an infamous reputation for its
ability to ruin the lives of whomever they choose to target. And all too often, these acts of
destruction are accompanied by the most brazen gestures of arrogance. For instance, an
honorable and highly respected clergy member I know, after surfacing unscathed from a recent
grueling audit, was cautioned not to worry because, as the IRS agent stated, “we’ll get you next
time!” Indeed, many victims of “the audit” find these experiences commonplace. Yet the
sharing of a further story, while anecdotal, may nevertheless prove sufficient commentary for
effectually bringing this point home.
I attended a social gathering where I planned to meet up with a professor, who happened
to be born in Ireland. This professor had tenure at one of the more prestigious universities in the
Midwest. He was, at the time, a staunch defender of the Serbian people, an ethnic group that was
being demonized by our government. Rather than supporting the Serbian nation, our country
instead decided to direct its weighty economic and military support on the sides of the Catholic
Croatians and Albanians Muslims -- during the impending trifurcation of Yugoslavia. As it
happens, the lion’s share of Serbs are members of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity,
36
173 THE FEDERALIST, NO. 51 (James Madison)
174 Id.

which finds its roots dating back to the second century. In addition to defending the Serbian
people -- both in America and abroad -- the aforementioned professor had been actively engaged
in defending the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as well, an organization our government did not
wish to survive, let alone thrive. Thus, using the IRS as its weapon of choice, the government
proceeded to destroy this professor; an individual possessing tremendous sensitivities for the
oppressed, and who held concomitant adamant aversions toward those who made them -- or at
least kept them -- so. Hence, our Government used the IRS, through erroneous, oppressive and
continual tax audits, to effectuate this professor’s demise. As they would ultimately bankrupt
him, it would appear that the government succeeded in its endeavors. Yet, as I stood in the midst
of this social gathering, within minutes of learning about this professor’s odious IRS plight
(directly from the professor himself), I subsequently struck up a conversation with another
individual who stood at my side, a man who -- unlike the professor -- was actually Serbian. My
first question to him was, “what do you do for a living?” His retort, “I am an attorney for the
IRS.” How fortuitous, I thought. Surely, the hand of providence is at work. Thus, my response:
“You know that professor X is in trouble, and that the IRS is trying to destroy him financially.
Yet you are an attorney for the IRS; why don’t you help this individual who is so devoted to
helping your Serbian community and people? His reply was, at first, utterly shocking: “If I try to
help him they will subsequently set their auditing sights on me. Thus, in the effort to save him I
will ultimately destroy myself.” This experience, I will proffer, speaks not only words, but
literally volumes about the IRS’ power to destroy. To destroy whomever it wishes, and for
whatever reason it deems fit to choose. Surely, if they will not refrain from undoing Ivy League
professors, or even IRS attorney insiders themselves, then clearly no one is safe from their
37

destructive, far reaching talons. Which means that Chief Justice John Marshall’s adage of 1819,
that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,”175 is as apropos today as when first
penned.176
It was nearly 200 years ago that Chief Justice Marshall wrote those prescient words
about the danger of a government’s power to tax.177 The Chief Justice was, at the time, alluding
to Maryland’s attempt to tax a Federal bank.178 By taxing this bank, Maryland was -- de facto --
destroying it. For, under Maryland’s taxation scheme, the bank would be precluded from
sustaining its required profitability and thus could ill afford to continue. Yet this scenario, under
the destructive power of taxation so aptly elucidated by Chief Justice Marshall,179 is played out
in a myriad of circumstances today. Indeed, when the government decides to tax some
individual or corporation it can -- incontrovertibly -- destroy that entity. And it can do so in one
of two ways: First, at the outset, it can raise such a high tax that the individual, organization, or
corporation stands precluded from its ability to supply that entities’ basic necessities for survival.
Secondly, this taxing organization can audit those persons or entities to such an odious degree
that they soon find themselves compelled to use up the lion’s share of their resources of both
time and money in defense of these audits. It is often the case that the greater portion of these
expenditures are paid out to attorneys who advocate in defense of their cause.180 Hence, one
readily observes that the IRS is empowered with formidable weapons to destroy. Adam Smith
38
175 Id.
177 Id.
178 Id.
179 Id.
180 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, p. 890 (1994)

was, in fact, cognizant of these weapons while observing; “by subjecting the people to the
frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much
unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression.”181 However, when a citizen, who is usually
possessed of one lawyer -- at best -- is pitted against an adversary who has at their disposal
hundreds of the same, how can he ever wish to prevail? The best he can hope to accomplish,
unknowingly of course, is to expend more of his precious economic resources toward the most
pitiful and hopeless of plights. Although David prevailed against Goliath once in history, surely
no reasonable person can rely on the repetition of so miraculous an occurrence.
Yet there exists, nonetheless, a significant distinction between these two modes of
destruction. In the firs instance, the IRS can levy taxes only as Congress -- and the Constitution
-- allow. Hence they are, under these circumstances, merely carrying out the directives of
Congress and the Executive. It is amongst this second category, however, that the IRS is
infamous; both in its blanket discretion as well as in its heedless ability to destroy.182 Indeed, it is
here that the IRS possesses near-absolute power of discretion in its choice of actions.183 Like the
Outback Steakhouse ads of old; “there are no rules, just right!” Thus, the IRS can go after
whomever it chooses whenever it wishes. And for these decisions, it answers to no one.184
The Tea Party scandal is a situation that is atypical in structure, but typical in how it
exemplifies the IRS’ willingness, and ability, to target -- and thus abuse -- specific people or
organizations for whatever reasons it deems fit. Which, in the case of the Tea Party, appears to
39
181 Id.
182 See generally George Will, Looking to Stop the Next IRS Scandal (March 4, 2015)
183 Id.
184 Id.

be little more than,“I believe these fanatical conservative groups pose a threat to my political
party’s success and thus wish to see them fail.” Consequently, certain mischievous individuals
residing within the upper echelons of IRS hierarchy -- suffering apparently from a
disproportionate measure of partisan fanaticism -- have proceeded to use every weapon
discovered in their arsenal to preclude their political opponents’ success. Yet, in the course of
their actions, these hell-bent partisans have likely further surmised; “I will probably never get
caught, but even if I do, a Democrat is on the throne. Thus, my actions will be bathed in
impunity.”
Now abuse such as this is characteristic of this behemoth organization, yet the manner in
which this abuse is played out in the Tea Party’s case proves rather novel. In the case of the Tea
Party, the IRS was, in essence, waging a tax by precluding tax exemption status. Hence, this
action falls under the first of the foregoing abuse categories discussed; that of excessive taxation,
something I shall now elaborate on further.
If an organization is deserving of 501(c)(3) tax exemption status; if, for instance, it is the
case that every similarly situated organization in the United States is accorded this tax favored
status except your own, then this unfavorable treatment -- beyond merely being unjust --
constitutes a tax. But unlike just any tax, this is a tax which requires a title of “excessive.” It is
excessive because it goes beyond what similarly situated organizations are required to pay. True,
those organizations have a legal right to their tax exempt status. But so do you! Thus your
competitors, which in the case of Tea Party organizations, might be liberal Democrat
organizations such Move On.Org -- an organization heavily funded by George Soros, a financial
trader of genius renown -- enjoy a formidable advantage over you. For instance, because they
40

are not taxed, they will amass more money. Further, the very denial of tax exempt status
precludes donors from realizing the benefit of tax deductions for their donations, the very feature
that greases the vast majority of donations in the first instance. Surely then, this tax exempt
denial constitutes a double-edged sword. But most reprehensible of all, this excessive taxation
violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and thus offends our Constitution.185
Thus when the government withhold’s a benefit that an organization has a legal right to,
so much so that every other organization placed not only in similar circumstances, but in many
cases perfectly identical ones, receives the benefit sought for, then the withholding of that right
must necessarily be deemed equivalent to an extraordinary and burdensome imposition. As
stated already, in the instant case, this imposition equates to an excessive tax. And to levy an
excessive tax on any organization, short of a reasonable and permissible legal justification, is
equivalent to oppressing that very same organization. And for the government to oppress an
organization without any reasonable or legal justification constitutes an overreach of our
government. And overreaches such as this are noisome, odious, and otherwise deeply offensive
to liberty. Moreover, they erode the public’s trust in our government, which leads to the
depreciation of our currency, and is therefore anemic to our Nation’s welfare. Further, allowing
for the continuance, let alone exacerbation, of this erosion of trust is morally offensive to all
concepts of virtue, both political and otherwise, virtues that history’s most revered and learned
41
185 U.S. Const. amend. V, sec. 4

political theorists have, from the time of Aristotle, devised.186 Further, this most paramount of
virtue’s offended was embraced by a jurist holding a place of incommensurable stature in our
nation’s history. Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall aptly states: “Taxation, it is said, does not
necessarily and unavoidably destroy.”187 However, “[t]o carry it to the excess of destruction
would be an abuse, to presume which would banish that confidence which is essential to all
Government.”188 Hence, abuse by the means of excessive taxation erodes that necessary and
essential confidence in our government, and thus stands repugnant, not only to our Constitution,
but to history’s greatest political philosophers as well. Indeed, from the time of Aristotle, these
philosophers held that the achievement of political virtue stands as government’s principal and
maximal aim.189 That it is principal, means that the preservation of society is government’s
essential goal. That it is maximal, references the fact that government’s highest goal is not
merely to see its citizens survive, but rather to flourish and thrive.
42
186 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent, trans. p. 43 (2010), John Locke, Second
(1993), (That public virtue, which among the ancients was denominated by patriotism, is derived from a strong
sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members) (see
aslo Hugh Trevor-Roper’s introduction to Gibbon, p. Lxxxviii, where he finds the basis for Gibbon’s thoughts in
Machiavelli’s concept of “public virtu.” And many other political philosophers of great renown were likely
influenced by him as well. For instance, when reading his Spirit of The Laws, one can readily deduce that
Montesquieu was a great fan of Machiavelli, and thus relied greatly upon his deliberations on the subject), Marcus
Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica, De Legibus, trans. Clinton Walker Keyes, bk. 2, sec. 11 (2000), Aristotle, The Basic
Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, pp. 1180, 1270-71, 1271 (2001)
188 Id.
189 Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, Thomas Nugent, trans. p. 43 (2010), John Locke, The Second
(1993), (That public virtue, which among the ancients was denominated by patriotism, is derived from a strong
sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members) (see
aslo Hugh Trevor-Roper’s introduction to Gibbon, p. Lxxxviii, where he finds the basis for Gibbon’s thoughts in
Machiavelli’s concept of “public virtu.” And many other political philosophers of great renown were likely
influenced by him as well. For instance, when reading his Spirit of The Laws, one can readily deduce that
Montesquieu was a great fan of Machiavelli, and thus relied greatly upon his deliberations on the subject), Marcus
Tullius Cicero, De Re Publica, De Legibus, trans. Clinton Walker Keyes, bk. 2, sec. 11 (2000), Aristotle, The Basic
Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, pp. 1180, 1270-71, 1271 (2001)

Yet the Tea Party abuse aforementioned also fell into something akin to the second
foregoing category as well; namely, the abuse stemming from odious auditing. Indeed, the inner
workings of countless Tea Party organizations were invasively pried into.190 And the IRS
developed no less than sixteen questions crafted specifically for Tea Party groups.191 Some of the
questions were catered to each Tea Party group in particular asking, for instance, a Richmond,
Virginia Tea Party group the extent of its relationship with a leader of a Tea Party Group in
Cincinnati, Ohio.192 And while the IRS appeared to reserve its inquiries into “the content of the
members of your organization’s prayers” for conservative pro-life groups alone;193 for
conservative organizations seeking this very same 501(3)(c) tax exempt status, the brazen and
invasive inquisitiveness directed at Tea Party groups were nevertheless equally offensive.
Moreover, it is likely that some of these questions travelled beyond the bounds of offensiveness,
crossing the line of decency altogether, and thus entering the realm constitutional repugnancy.194
And surely, this invasiveness was and is strikingly similar to the noisome and innumerable
inquiries inherent to tax audits. And many of these Tea Party organizations, no doubt, had to
devote not only time, sweat, and labor to these matters, but were also forced to utilize their --
often scant -- personal economic resources as well. Indeed, they were frequently compelled to
hire lawyers to defend their cause.195 Perhaps, if he could have foreseen the mischievousness the
43
190 Chris Good, Weirdest IRS Questions for the Tea Party: Views, Donors, and Etymology (May 14, 2013)
191 Id.
192 Id.
193 Id.
194 Rep. Aaron Schock, House Ways and Means Committee Hearing on the Targeting of Tea Party and Other
Conservative Groups (May 17, 2013)
195 See generally Jay Sekulow, et al., Tea Party Complaint, Case 1:13-cv-00777 (DCDC, May 29, 2013)

IRS would ultimately employ, Chief Justice Marshall would have penned his words differently;
perhaps he would have additionally asserted that “the power to audit, is the power to destroy.”196
For surely, in the preponderance of cases this is the outcome suffered. Hence, the mere decision
by an official at the IRS to audit an individual or organization can mean the economic death of
the same. What a formidable power they wield; the power to audit, thus the power to destroy.
Yet, as recent IRS events surely evidence, this has proved to be more power than they can
effectually maintain. What then shall we do with this leviathan gone awry? What just course of
action does our conscience dictate? Shall we seek to preserve the political life of a branch of our
government that appears to possess a life of its own; a life earned merely as a repercussion of its
bureaucratically behemoth size?
The IRS has, I believe, as evidenced by its recent actions, reached a point of no return. It
should, therefore, be disbanded. This organization has outlived its political lifespan; the general
purpose for its being created in the first instance. And presently, its impetus -- life force, if you
will -- is only to self-survive. And in its corresponding boredom, a sure symptom of its lack of a
general purpose for existing, the IRS devolves -- like a bored and mischief-bent elementary
school child -- down various paths of mischievousness, some quite harmful, while unknown to
most. Yet, happily, no rocket scientist is required to construe its manner of replacement. A
combined flat and spending tax is all that is required; the implementation of which is a no-
brainer of sort.
Yet surely, it did not have to come to this. The IRS could have chosen to dwell in a realm
of political neutrality, yet it did not. And the actions which took them beyond this political
44
196 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 431 (1819) (That the power to tax involves the power to destroy)

middle ground possessed none of the characteristics of inadvertency that we would expect to
observe where mere human error was at work. Rather, the IRS’ actions evidence intentionality at
its fullest. Like King George drunk with power, their ability to self-restrain was utterly lost. Or,
at the least, the IRS decidedly abandoned all resistance when the organization’s own thirst for
power became formidably strong.
In the twenty-nine page IRS Tea Party abuse complaint aforementioned, attorney
Sekulow notes that most of the letters received by these organizations from the IRS were
stamped with the imprimatur, if not the signature, of Lois G. Lerner.197 Until her somewhat
pressured retirement, Lerner was the head of the tax exempt division at the IRS.198 She, and
perhaps some of those she supervised at the time, admittedly -- and brazenly -- targeted
innumerable Tea Party organizations throughout this nation, making the lives of countless
individuals, at times, unbearable.199 Unsurprisingly, such abuse led numerous organizations to
give up on what was their significant legal and political right; the rights to be granted tax-exempt
status and contribute to this nation’s political discourse.200 And as this despair fulfilled the very
designs of the IRS’ stratagems, the IRS was therefore unsurprised by these outcomes.
While nascent in structure, these Tea Party groups possessed the political vision and will
necessary to grow into something prodigious and formidable. It would appear that the Democrat
leaning IRS -- as evidenced by the pervasive environment of permissiveness toward targeting
conservative groups -- was of the same opinion. For why else would this behemoth organization
45
197 Jay Sekulow, et al., Tea Party Complaint, Case 1:13-cv-00777, passim (DCDC, May 29, 2013)
198 Id.
199 Id., see George Will, Looking to Stop the Next IRS Scandal (March 4, 2015)
200 Jay Sekulow, et al., Tea Party Complaint, Case 1:13-cv-00777, pp 9-10 (DCDC, May 29, 2013)

place these groups under its daunting radar? Surely, an administration with Democrats at the
helm will run the risk that zealous partisans within that administration will seek to use the
nation’s government to further, by unethical and perhaps illegal means, their party’s objectives.
And Republicans are by no means immune from such temptations -- think Nixon! However,
moving beyond these partisan illegalities, I proffer that the IRS has patently shown itself,
through its recent adroitness at using itself not only as a political tool, but a weapon as well,
unworthy of its place in our society. For not only has it proved itself incapable of business as
usual; the IRS has shown itself incapable of business altogether. For Democrats and Republicans
alike, the IRS has -- in its addictive expanse for power -- ultimately lost its ability to command
the respect of the American citizenry.
The Government’s Need to Tax
Yet what shall we replace the IRS with? Clearly, the government needs a tax to support
itself. Amidst the inchoate stages of this great nation, Chief Justice Marshall observed; “[i]t is
admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence
of Government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the
utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it.”201 And as for the obligation of
citizens to fund its government, Adam Smith took the position that,
[t]he expense of government to the individuals of a great nation, is like the expense of
management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are obliged to contribute in
proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In observance or neglect of this
maxim consists, what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.202
46
201 McCulloch v, Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428 (1819)
202 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations p. 888 (1994)

Now that the need for taxation is conceded, all that remains is the method by which these taxes
are garnered. However, the solution for the most effectual -- as well as just -- mode of taxation is
not, perhaps, as complex as most would anticipate. The solution is, in part, a simple flat tax.203
In concert with these sentiments, the “off-the-charts brilliant”204 Senator Ted Cruz
“think[s] we ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax,”205 “where the
average American can fill out our taxes on a postcard.”206 He states, “[p]ut down how much you
earned. Put down a deduction for charitable contributions, for home mortgage [interest] and how
much you owe.”207 Thus under Senator Cruz’s proposal, the majority of citizens would use “just
a simple one page postcard.”208 And by doing so, you would “take the agents, the bureaucracy
out of Washington and limit the power of government.”209 In spite of its elementary formulation,
I tend to agree with Senator Cruz’s simplistic deduction. More complexity requires more hands.
And more hands require greater financial resources with which to manage those hands.
Nonetheless, there are detractors who question the feasibility of eliminating this organization
entirely as we know it. Hence, these individuals argue; “what you really mean is shrinking the
47
203 I first presented this idea to my wife back in 2001.
204 The Blaze, Prominent Harvard Professor Dershowitz’s Comments About Ted Cruz Could Help His 2016 Chances
(April 7, 2014)
205 Which leads me to deduce that we should never refrain from expressing a good idea, “else, tomorrow a stranger
will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to
take with shame our own opinion from another.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-reliance and Other Essays, p. 20
(1993).
206 Fox News, Senator Cruz Leading the Charge on Abolishing the IRS: GOP Lawmaker Makes a Case for Flat Tax
(June 3, 2013)
207 Id.
208 Id.
209 Id.

size of the IRS, not its actual elimination.”210 Thus they assert that Senator Cruz is merely
seeking a change in the tax code, and thus is utilizing mere hyperbole when speaking of
abolishing the IRS altogether.211
And it is quite true to say that patent feasibility issues arise when deliberating Senator
Cruz’s postcard proposal. Indeed, a program replacing the IRS altogether will not be so simple a
task. Foremost, the concept of using a postcard will strike many -- in our present era at least -- as
rather antiquated. Surely, an online submission of one’s earnings and deduction’s data would
prove far more efficient. And to ensure the accuracy of these filings, recent advances in
technology would be utilized. In truth, it will be these very same technological advances that
enable our government to make this transition out of the IRS system in the first place, a transition
into something altogether different, and far more cost efficient, than ever before observed. As
for a name, I suggest that the new system adopt a somewhat generic name, for instance, the
Government Tax Retrieval System (GTR hereafter), a name that will no longer generate the
innumerable nightmares associated with its predecessor.
The Feasibility of the Proposed GTR System
“Political writers, although they have excellent ideas, are often unpractical.”212
Aristotle cautions us on the frequent impracticability of political writers. One might even
suspect he was thinking of John Rawls and his theory regarding the “original position.”213
48
210 Joel McDurmon, Dear Ted Cruz: Here’s What “Abolish the IRS” Really Means (June 4, 2013)
211 Id.
212 Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett, pp. 1205-06 (2001)
213 See generally John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. (1999)

Tea parties and abusive sovereigns by Paul F Hannan

Tea parties and abusive sovereigns by Paul F Hannan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Paul Hannan

More from Paul Hannan (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Tea parties and abusive sovereigns by Paul F Hannan