Lecture 17: Arguing Affirmative Action – Harvard Justice

In , 2004-1 C.B. 617, the IRS describes severaldifferent variations of these “redemption” claims, andwarns of the consequences of acting on these kinds of claims, such ascriminal prosecution for tax evasion.

Affirmative action in college admissions was ..

we find insignificant changes in affirmative action in ..
Photo provided by

Affirmative Action | Affirmative Action | Equal Opportunity

My own observations of tax protesters lead me to believe that theactions of tax protesters are driven by emotional or psychologicalneeds that are more complicated than simple greed, and that the“arguments” they present to the IRS and the courts arereally nothing but elaborate rationalizations (or delusions) thatthey have constructed in order to avoid a reality that they areunable to accept. Sometimes the unacceptable reality is a sense ofpersonal financial failure. Unable to accept the idea that their ownincomes (or the lack thereof) might be the result of their own lackof skill or effort, or a matter of impersonal economics, taxprotesters instead decide that the income tax system is the problemand begin finding reasons why it should not exist. In other cases,the unacceptable reality may be a moral or legal failure. An unhappyencounter with the government, such as a bad result in a divorce or achild custody dispute, or even something as minor as a speedingticket, can lead to a belief that the government is broken, corrupt,or otherwise dysfunctional, which can then lead to a fixation on thefederal tax system as symbolic of that dysfunction. In the case ofalmost every persistent tax protester, there is some personal,financial, or legal trauma or crisis that precedes the taxprotester’s obsession with the tax system.

Does the 14th Amendment Mandate Affirmative Action

“Any other rule than that indicated in the aboveobservations would bring confusion and uncertainty in theadministration of the criminal law. Indeed, if a jury may rightfullydisregard the direction of the court in matter of law, and determinefor themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, itis difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict ofconviction can be set aside by the court as being against law. If itbe the function of the jury to decide the law as well the facts,-ifthe function of the court be only advisory as to the law,- why shouldthe court interfere for the protection of the accused against what itdeems an error of the jury in matter of law?

“Public andprivate safety alike would be in peril if the principle beestablished that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregardthe law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law untothemselves. Under such a system, the principal function of the judgewould be to preside and keep order while jurymen, untrained in thelaw, would determine questions affecting life, liberty, or propertyaccording to such legal principles as, in their judgment, wereapplicable to the particular case being tried. If because, generallyspeaking, it is the function of the jury to determine the guilt orinnocence of the accused according to the evidence, of the truth orweight of which they are to judge, the court should be held bound toinstruct them upon a point in respect to which there was no evidencewhatever, or to forbear stating what the law is upon a given state offacts, the result would be that the enforcement of the law againstcriminals, and the protection of citizens against unjust andgroundless prosecutions, would depend entirely upon juriesuncontrolled by any settled, fixed, legal principles. And if it betrue that a jury in a criminal case are under no legal obligation totake the law from the court, and may determine for themselves whatthe law is, it necessarily results that counsel for the accused may,of right, in the presence of both court and jury, contend that whatthe court declares to be the law applicable to the case in hand isnot the law, and, in support of his contention, read to the jury thereports of adjudged cases, and the views of elementary writers.”

Some norms mention affirmative action to note that such actions would be ..
Photo provided by

Management Policies - National Park Service

The claims have progressed to the point now where not only are all of Indian civilization and all of its languages regarded as autochthonous (with languages said to originate in India, and derived from Dravidian languages, rather than arriving from elsewhere and unrelated to Dravidian), but the civilization itself is said to extend back to the Pleistocene Epoch (before 10,000 BC), with any ruins or artifacts conveniently covered by rising sea levels.

See changes that went into effect Jan. 14, 2017.

Such an idea is to most modern minds, as it was to the majority of philosophers in Epicurus' day, unthinkable: between the one set of facts and the other there is a great gulf fixed: nothing can bridge the gulf that lies between the most elementary sensation and the atomic vibrations which accompany and condition it.

Indian, Chinese, & Japanese Emperors - Friesian School

There may be a difference between (a) refusing to pay a tax as anact of civil disobedience (i.e., without claiming that penaltiesshould not apply) and (b) claiming that the first amendment allowsyou to refuse to pay the tax without penalty (which the IRS says isfrivolous). But refusing to pay a tax as an act of conscientiousobjection, without claiming any constitutional or other legal supportfor the objection, could be a willful refusal to pay the tax, wouldcould as a misdemeanor by up to one year in jail and a $25,000 fine.26 U.S.C. 7203. However, it is difficult to find any case in whichthe government has criminally prosecuted someone who has refused topay because of religious beliefs.