Jump to content
FrustratedCitizen

How to Sue the Government for Misuse of Tax Dollars...

Recommended Posts

Is it possible to sue the federal and/or state & community government(s) for tax fraud or theft for taxing its law-abiding citizens to provide health care, food, education, housing, and numerous other services for illegal aliens?

 

Is there any way to refuse to fund these services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in a democratic republic. The Congress and state legislatures are elected by voters and those bodies make the laws that we live by. The laws thus reflect what presumably the majority of voters want. A majority of voters; not 100% of them. Not everyone likes every law that is passed nor every program that the government runs. The bitter debate over Obamacare and the proposed immigration reform legislation are just two of the many bills that I could point to that have had a lot of of opposition.

 

Those opposed don’t get to stymie the will of the majority by suing the government to stop the programs they oppose. They also may not legally refuse to pay the taxes that fund these programs simply because they don’t like how the tax dollars are spent. In short, if you don’t like how these programs are run, your remedy is to lobby the Congress or state legislature responsible for the program to enact the changes that you want. You won’t get relief for this in the courts, and refusing to pay taxes as a protest of these programs will get you at the very least expensive civil penalties and may even earn you time in prison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to sue the federal and/or state & community government(s) for tax fraud or theft for taxing its law-abiding citizens to provide health care, food, education, housing, and numerous other services for illegal aliens?

 

Is there any way to refuse to fund these services?

 

 It is possible, yes, as far as Congress is concerned, however, a so called "Taxpayer" suit can oly be upheld in RARE circumstances, see Flast v. Cohen.

 

I would believe such is the same on a state/local level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand democracy. However, I am uncertain as to how many Americans are aware that illegal aliens are eligible for the social services that our tax dollars are paying for... As the government implies that our welfare state is for the sustainment of actual Americans. Is there no code dictating that our tax dollars should be used to advance our own citizens? How can it be legally justifiable to force US citizens to provide a free ride to criminals from other countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand democracy. However, I am uncertain as to how many Americans are aware that illegal aliens are eligible for the social services that our tax dollars are paying for.

 

Well, first of all, illegal aliens are not entitled to every government benefit or service. There are a number of programs and benefits for which they are not eligible. As one example, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is the current name for what many know as the foodstamp program, allows benefits for a number of legal aliens but does not permit illegal aliens to get benefits. See the USDA statement of non-citizen eligibilty for the details on that. 

 

Second of all, most Americans are not aware of most bills that pass Congress and their state legislatures. That doesn’t make the laws invalid. There is no requirement that the general public be aware of the bills as they are debated. The Congress and many state legislatures make it fairly easy to find and track bills as they work their way through the legislative process. Sadly, very few Americans even know those resources are there, let alone actually ever use them. Few Americans bother to contact their representatives to express their views on the law. If Americans don’t get involved in the legislative process, they have themselves to blame when the law turns out not to their liking.

 

 

 

Is there no code dictating that our tax dollars should be used to advance our own citizens? 

 

Neither the U.S. Constitution nor any federal statute requires that tax dollars be used exclusively to aid American citizens. As far as I know, no state constitution or statute has a such a requirement, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FindLaw_Amir

Have you contacted your state and local representatives to address your concerns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tax_Council:

Although the SNAP website may say that there are citizenship requirements for food stamps, the federal government has been steadfast in their outreach efforts to illegal immigrants - making sure they know, in Spanish of course, that they can get food stamps and their immigration status will not be checked. Ref: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/26/USDA-to-Illegal-Immigrants-You-Can-Qualify-for-Food-Stamps

It seems to me that citizens must have some recourse through the US v Butler decision that provided Congress can only exercise taxes "to provide for the general welfare of the United States". It would seem, to me at least, that financially burdening US citizens with feeding/educating/healing/etc. etc. criminals from other countries in fact harms the general welfare of US citizens, on many levels.

@FindLaw_AHK:

I have sent correspondence to my state and local officials on numerous occasions, trying to get some type of voter ID law put into place and attempting to stop the criminal hike in my taxes used to provide election materials in 6 different languages. I figured, if we stopped inviting illegal aliens to have a say in our policies then we would not have anyone voting for these abusive punishments of the law-abiding, tax paying citizen. Unfortunately, I live in Southern California, in a city that is almost 50% Hispanic, and none of my law makers have the guts to go against these potential votes, even if to protect the legal citizens that pay their salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the government implies that our welfare state is for the sustainment of actual Americans.

 

Which government does this?  The federal government.  One or more state governments?  If the latter, which one(s) are you talking about?  How does "the government" make this supposed implication?  Note, by the way, that the federal government's budget (and, as far as I know, every state government's budget as well) is a matter of public record.  Thus, anyone who actually cares about this issue, can access the publicly available information.  Accordingly, there is no "fraud" or misrepresentation as to how tax dollars are being used.  Note also that tax revenue is only one source of a government's income that is used to fund such programs.

 

 

 

Is there no code dictating that our tax dollars should be used to advance our own citizens?

 

Yes.  Note also that there are a number of persons in the United States who are not citizens and who are also not "illegal aliens."

 

 

 

How can it be legally justifiable to force US citizens to provide a free ride to criminals from other countries?

 

It's "legally justifiable" because the spending clause in the U.S. Constitution sanctions it and nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.  While I can't say so with certainty, I expect analogous provisions exist in every state's constitution.

 

The bottom line is that this is a political issue, not a legal issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My esteemed frustrated, the first thing that you (and all the others replying) don’t understand is that the Federal government rarely spends "tax money"! The fiat money that is spent is borrowed money, printed up by the Federal Reserve. This, of course, make all of our money worth less and things cost more. It is "taxation by inflation".

 

It’s what makes some of us, our parents and grandparents have to give back their house to the bank... they call it a reverse mortgage. No longer able to make it on the devalued money, after so many years of struggling to pay off the mortgage, they are force to return their home to the bank to get money to live on. THIS IS THE BIGGEST TRAVESTY OUR GOVERNMENT HEAPED ON US AND OUR PARENTS.

 

There is a way to sue the government, both federal, state, and local. Only if the moneys are spent contrary to existing law or regulation... That’s a tough road to go. Most judges are predisposed to "government can do no wrong" (sovereign immunity). The bar is very high for the 3 F’s (mis-feasance, mal-feasance and non-feasance). The 3 F’s can be used in a § 1983 action against local government, but you will be coming before a judge that owes his whole allegiance to the system that got him his job.

Judges are the biggest reason to choose a president... they are still there many years after the original jerk has already left office.

 

Lifetime appointment needs to change. Without the cadre of "government can do no wrong" judges, those who we elect would be more likely to do what the promised to get elected. The same goes for that vast group of non-elected government workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you whole heartedly but just as pataruntu said all the taxes collected that are supposed to fund all these programs are not being used for that purpose any more.All taxes collected go straight into the pockets of the elite bankers that run the private cooperation known as the federal reserve to pay off the national debt.Which can never be payed off.If we had a republican form of government, the way the founding fathers meant it to be, we would'nt have these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had a republican form of government, the way the founding fathers meant it to be, we would'nt have these problems.

 

A republican form of government is one in which the citizens elect the persons who make the laws. While the founders spoke with great passion about democracy and republicanism, the government they created was not fully republican nor truly democratic. 

 

As for a republic, the founders didn't go so far as to create a pure republic. Instead, the founders wrote the constitution to provide for a partial republic — the citizens directly elected only the members of the House of Representatives. The founders did not fully trust the passions of the public (despite all the grand statements many of them made about democracy), and thus made the Senate composed of people appointed by the state legislatures rather than directly elected by the citizens. Similarly, the President and Vice-President were not directly elected by the citizens either. The citizens voted for electors, who then in turn voted for President and Vice-President. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, has been the only change to the founders scheme. It provides that the Senate is now to be made up of members directly elected by the citizens. Thus, that was a step towards a more republican government, not away from it. The only step left now would be to directly elect the President and Vice-President. So while the federal government is not today precisely in the form the founders set up, it is actually more republican today than it was in 1789. I happen to think that having the government more republican is a good thing. I guess you disagree and want a less republican government like the founders sent and would like to see the Senate appointed by state legislators. Why is that? 

 

Note, too, that in 1789, despite our founders grand words in documents like the Declaration of Independence, the government we had in 1789 was not terribly democratic in nature. Only white males could vote. In many states, one also had to be a landowner to vote. Every one else had no say in our government. Persons of color and women had to wait until 1870 (Amendment 15) and 1920 (Amendment 19) respectively to be guaranteed the right to vote. State voting laws eventually got rid of the requirement that a person be a landowner to vote. Every adult citizen today except for a few persons like convicts is eligible to vote. Thus, we are far more democratic today than in 1789. All of those changes I happen to think are for the better. I take it you disagree and would like to return to having just white male land owners vote?

 

While our founders did create a much better and more democratic nation than the European nations of the day, it hardly lived up to the grand rhetoric of freedom and democracy they espoused. We've been trying to move closer to those ideals ever since. We have not yet succeeded, but we are much closer now then in 1789. Let's give credit to the founders for the strides they made, but let’s not make them out to be greater than they were. They were not perfect. Indeed, they recognized that the government they created was not perfect. The Preamble to the Constitution simply states that they thought it to be “more perfect” than the government that preceded it (which was a confederacy). Thomas Jefferson thought that the government should be completely remade every generation to suit the needs of the people. Specifically, he stated that “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.” He recognized that the pursuit of perfection would be ongoing process. He'd likely be shocked that our Constitution and basic government structure have changed so little in over 200 years.

 

So, while our government still has many flaws and can be improved, going backwards to what the founders created is the wrong way to go. We should instead be moving forward to improve the country and continue to make a “more perfect union.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in no way racist i believe that everyone whether your a man or woman black or white has the right to do anything they want as long as it does'nt effect me in any way or break any laws. how can we form a more perfect union when the federal government is taking more and more of our freedoms away.they can listen in on our private conversations. who knows what else there doing.Do you disagree that the federal government has and is still going beyond it's constitutional boundries.the federal government has given itself unlimited power to look into the private lives of every american in this country through the patriot act.Which was rushed into law before it could be sufficiantly looked at by congress or the house.Now every body is guilty before being proven innocent.the federal government has been taking more and more control away from the people in the form of this bill or that bill to disguise what there actually doing.The people need to wake up and see what there government actually is.I'll bet most of the people in this country don't even know that we have been in a national state of emergency since march 9 1933.That means the the president  any time he wants can seize property, orginize and control the means of production,seize commodities,institute martial law.Thats just to name a few.now i know thats the extreme end to things but the simple fact is that the founding fathers although not perfect wanted a limited form of government with the powers not expressly given it by the constitution to be given to the people.The government has found ways to circumvent the constitution for it's bennefit and thats wrong.And the blame for all this is the american people because we have become to comfortable and complacent to realize or even care what their government is doing.I hope everybody realizes that somethings wrong before it's to late to do anything about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...