What we have just heard. The National Constitution center is a private nonprofit with an Inspiring Mission from congress, to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people. That is just what we are trying to do as we Learn Together during these important arguments. Joining us to learn and to help understand the arguments we have just heard are two of americas leading advocates and scholars of the constitution, both of whom have filed briefs, called amicus briefs, on different sides of the case. Walter weber filed a brief in support of the petitioners, who are known as u. S. A id, and the case is usaid versus the alliance for open society international. He is senior counsel for the American Center for law and justice in washington, d. C. , which is the organization on whose behalf he filed a brief. He has written many briefs in landmark cases of the supreme aclj an
Argument in a case involving the taxation of earnings de by americans from a foreign company. The ca focuses on an indiabased company with more than half of its ownership held by americans. It was brought forward by a plaintiff who objected to a clause in a 2017 change in tax law that would have required a onetime repatriation test. This is about two hours. The court squarely held us much just a few years following adoption of the amendment. The it is undpud that the petitioners realedothing froms are stock investment. They were taxed not because they have no income but because in 17hey happened to owe shares in a corporation carrying retained earnings on its bks this is a tax on the ownership of property and therefore must be apportioned. The government cannot identify a single thing congress could not tax income underts position that reazation is unnecessary. Thout realization there is no limiting principle. Excepting the governments position on income would make a hash of the curren
By americans. It w brought forward by a plaintiff who objected to a clause in a 2017 change in tax law that would have wired a repatriation tax. This is about two. The court squarely held us much just a few years foowg adoption of the amendment. The the presidt kes easy work of the case. It is undisputed the petiors realize nothing from their stock investment. They were taxed not because they had income but becse in 2017 they happened to own sharein corporation. This is a taxn e ownership of property. Dispensing with the need for realization, the framers regarded this as the essential chec on the power of congress to taxrorty. The government cannot identify a single thing congress could not tax its income under its position realization is unnecessary. Without realization there is no limiting principle. Accepting th government position on income would make a cap hash of the current law. Gateway defition of gross income asserts congresses taxing por der the 16th amendment roh reaching al
of united states his appointed attorney general, the direct or of fbi, the u.s. attorney also appointed by the president of the united states, and special counsel appointed by the attorney general of the united states, what do we do as a country if they stonewall the house of representatives majority of whom are republicans? what do we do as a country if the national archives, also part of the executive branch, is also stonewalling the republicans? in other words, what to we do if separation of powers is violated by the executive branch. and the executive branch is only body we think, that can enforce the law. it is the executive. we have reached this point. we have most dangerous fbi today since history of the fbi. we have most dangerous department of justice since it was founded by grant in 1870. we have the most dangerous attorney general since george washington hand-picked an attorney general in 1775. attorney general did not actually become a person who would be confi