On the Higher Law

Following up on "The State of Being," the "Higher Law" is the "letter of the law," the form of the law, and the "spirit" of the law, when we talk about "spirit," we're speaking of man's soul. "Legal," the form of the law, "legal" is a construction of the law. Without a foundation, namely, the "spirit" of the law, you've got a house built on sand.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines soul as our immaterial essence, our animating principle, or actuating cause of life. Our cause of life, associated with unlimited awareness potential, has progressed over the ages. The ages are associated with movement, astrologically defined as the movement of star constellations. We're now moving from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius, an age of high tech, an age of rapid change, an age of uncertainty. In the physical universe, what comes around goes around. In the Age of Aquarius, we, individually, choose what is to be. Anything is possible.

With anything is possible in mind, getting back to the law, America's courts, in keeping with today's rapid change, have changed the Constitution from its original intent to "in light of today's needs;" that is, naturally, the people's needs, not the needs of the powers that be. As it turns out, it's the fox watching over the henhouse. Mention natural law to a politician. It's like throwing holy water at the face of the devil. Case in point: In Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)

Flast at 98: Chief Justice Earl Warren for the Court: "As we understand it, the Government's position is that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, and the deference owed by the federal judiciary to the other two branches of government within that scheme, present an absolute bar to taxpayer suits challenging the validity of federal spending programs. The Government views such suits as involving no more than the mere disagreement by the taxpayer ‘with the uses to which tax money is put.' According to the Government, the resolution of such disagreements is committed to other branches of the Federal Government and not to the judiciary. Consequently, the Government contends that, under no circumstances, should standing to be conferred on federal taxpayers to challenge a federal taxing or spending program. An analysis of the function served by standing limitations compels a rejection of the Government's position."

Chief Justice Warren was speaking to the case of some taxpayers who petitioned to be heard on the constitutionality of the State of New York expediently forking over taxpayer money to church schools, allegedly in violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
Flast at 99: "The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated. The ‘gist of the question of standing' is whether the party seeking relief has ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.' Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)

Flast at 105: "We have noted that the Establishment clause of the First Amendment does specifically limit the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, section 8. Whether the Constitution contains other specific limitations can be determined only in the context of future cases. However, whenever such specific limitations are found, we believe a taxpayer will have a clear stake as a taxpayer in assuring that they are not breached by Congress. Consequently, we hold that a taxpayer will have standing consistent with Article III to invoke federal judicial power when he alleges that congressional provisions which operate to restrict the exercise of the taxing and spending authority. The taxpayer's allegation in such cases would be that his tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against such abuses of legislative power."

The taxpayers in Flast were granted standing, due to something that might be determined in future cases. Their cause was ruled against by reason that the amount of money, when spread out over all of New York's taxpayers, was not enough of a violation to warrant the Court's rejection of the tax. The Court recognized that we don't have perfect justice. The court can't be asked to judge on every penny of tax money spent. What about every single taxpayer being wronged by the tax collector? Should every wronged taxpayer be heard? Perhaps not, but how about all taxpayers? What if all taxpayer are being unconstitutionally robbed of thousands of dollars, simply because not one is being heard?

When Congress and the President pass legislation that will cost every federal taxpayer thousands of dollars, and said legislation will reward the irresponsible and penalize the responsible, not only do the taxpayers have standing to challenge taxing and spending, but the letter and the spirit of the law assures them of justice. The trouble is that not all taxpayers are demanding justice, and the one demanding justice is not being heard.

In my case before the Supreme Court, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue lied. My case was not heard. It was heard by The Palm Beach Post. A front page story appeared in which the IRS admitted that for 11 years it had lawlessly confiscated by property. I got what was mine back but in the meanwhile the IRS put me on the street. The taxpayer is automatically guilty as changed.

I don't jump through authority's hoops. One and all, in my view, authorities are placing the public's needs secondary to their own. If this is truly a government of the people, for the people, it takes personal involvement. I spent an estimated 2,000 hours in legal research on my taxpayer case. I'm not a lawyer. I was guided by those who came before me. After the fact, after my cause was brought to the attention of The Palm Beach Post, I was proven right and the tax collector wrong.

America's future is up for grabs. I'm no longer a taxpayer. I'm 83 and one of the government entitled. This is no longer my fight. I'm offering a little of what I learned about the law for whatever use the taxpayers may find in it.