Name an “expansion of federal power interpreted into existence” by a Supreme Court ruling? (emphasis mine)
Back to the OP - the claim by tax protesters seems often to be that you can’t show somebody the law that says they have to pay income tax. I came across a page that succinctly points it out: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
It also refutes the other common myth, that some things, such as rewards for your labor, are not “income.”
The various SC rulings since the 1930s relating to the Commerce Clause, which has been so expanded as to permit the federal government to regulate damn near anything.
Whoa, where’d this thread come from? Thought it was pretty much over with the links to the half-dozen previous threads (didn’t realize tax protestor was the common term for these crazies, would have made searching easier).
Anyway, thanks for these links. I wanted to blow my brains out (or rather, his brains out) when my friend made me and another incredibly stupid and gullible girl watch this stupid movie. She might have been the worst part, this girl was so dumb that nothing she said made any sense in the context of the debate. Or the off-topic debate about the freedom of information act.
But I will direct my friend to these links, he’s a smart kid but way too into these conspiracy theories. Hopefully he’ll learn something.
I heard from a guy who saw it on the internet about a guy who was mentioned on C-SPAN once, that if you prepare your return in a room that has a flag with fringe on the end of it, you get to reduce your taxes by 10%. 
Me too! And then there is my absolute favorite, Kent Hovind , a particularly moronic Young Earth Creationist who is serving 10 years for protesting taxes. (Kent’s line: everything he has is actually owned by god, so the IRS needs to take it up with him.)
Contrary to common wisdom, the Commerce Clause has almost always had an expansive interpretation. I suggest reading the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824). The commerce power, “like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.” (ibid, p. 196).
Thus, the temporary (1888 to 1936) contraction of Congressional power in the area of interstate commerce resulting from the application of the Tenth Amendment as a limiting factor was not the norm, but, rather the exception. In short, Congress has had, with only a short exception, the power to extensively regulate interstate commerce, without judicial interference. And, I will point out, there is no language in the Constitution which would indicate otherwise. So the Supreme Court has not had to “interpret” anything into existence in this regard.
Is Congress more willing to act in the name of interstate commerce now than in 1825? Of course. But Congress is more willing to act regarding ANY of its granted areas of power than it was in 1825. Blame Roosevelt for that, not the Supreme Court.
[/hijack]
So he’s never heard of “Render unto Caesar” then? If you don’t like paying Uncle Sam’s taxes, don’t use Uncle Sam’s money. 
If I had his address, I could go take his stereo. “Sorry, Kent, but God told me he bought a new stereo and I could have his old one.”
Hovind also got into trouble for building his Dino Land park without a building permit, for a similar reason.
But county commissioner Mike Whitehead said “Scripture also says ‘Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.’ And right now, Caesar demands a building permit.”