An earlier thread that may be of interest: Refute this endearingly loopy (Canadian) anti-tax argument - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
And a quotation that I find very useful when dealing with tax-protest cases: “Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.
This is so obviously false that I had to drag it in here from all the way back on page 2.
The income tax is clearly not a “direct tax on labor”, as shown by the fact that you can labor your ass off 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year at volunteer or subminimum-wage jobs and, as long as your income remains below the tax threshold, pay no income tax whatsoever.
On the other hand, if you have taxable income from some source that requires no labor on your part at all, you still have to pay income tax on it.
The income tax is a tax on getting money, not a tax on doing work. Yes, for most of us getting money happens to be directly connected to doing work, but the income tax doesn’t strictly require that connection.
Don’t insult R.A.H., Brainglutten, or i will put the Skull Eye Hex onna youse. 
What, no flying winged howler monkeys?!
I feel slighted. 
CNN.com’s story on the situation: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/21/tax.evaders.ap/index.html
I bet the government is trying to put fluoride in the Browns’ well, too.
Ugh. I had not considered this. I felt that if the Feds kept the couple penned up on the compound for five years, then that could be considered “sentence served”.
But with the Kook Brigade coming out, someone might start a scuffle with Da Man just to get their mug on the news…
The authorities really do need to cut off access to the compound. The Browns claim to be self-sufficient; let them prove it. I agree that having all those wingnuts hanging around the area is just trouble waiting to happen.
I think it’s good that we’ll get an idea of just how many militia are hanging around these parts. I do miss reading his sign near his wife’s dental office. I learned a lot about Zionists and us papists.
Just for the record: Mr. Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Thus, we is not a party to which one can appeal to determine the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution.
Sua
You’re Jeffersonian strict constructionist? Then I’m sure you can answer a question that occasionally arises: please point out the clause in the U.S. Constitution which authorised President Jefferson to make the Louisiana Purchase.
Yes, I’ve always wondered about that, too. 
Not that I’m complaining, mind you…
Jefferson himself was uncomfortable with this, writing later that he had “stretched the Constitution until it cracked.”
Well, as long as he felt *conflicted * about it afterward…
Oh, now you’re just being mean.
Come to think of it, Hamilton didn’t have much to do with the Constitution either. He was at the Convention, but left when his plan was rejected.
But both Jefferson and Hamilton were contemporary statesmen who commented on the Constitution. To call oneself a “Jeffersonian strict constructionist” is not ipso facto nonsensical.
I don’t think he left because his plan was rejected, but because his two co-delegates from New York left, depriving him of any vote (delegates voted as states, not as individuals). But he came back, and participated in further work on the draft, as the Wiki article mentions. He did sign the final draft, even though he could not vote for the final draft.
Isn’t it? When Mr. Jefferson is noted for one of the earliest, most significant expansions of the Constitution, can he really lay claim to being a strict constructionist?
Merely probing the underpinnings of the argument. 
Scaring the OPer away, more like. (Where’d he go?)
I also believe Jefferson recommended the Constitution should be discarded, and a new one written from scratch, every 20 years or so, on the grounds that you cannot expect a man to wear a boy’s jacket.