Bill to give IRS the ability to deny new passports and revoke existing passports

[Iniquitous]

Bill s1813

Buried in this bill about highway transportation is a section that authorizes the IRS to deny new passports and revoke existing passports to anyone they claim owes $50,000 or more. No due process - just the claim from the IRS.

Now, what brought this to my attention was someone posting it on my FB saying it would authorize the IRS to remove the right to own a firearm. I've looked over the very long bill and seen nothing of that in the bill - however, what I did find is if someone is put on a No Fly list in the United States then the person is no longer allowed to buy/own a handgun.

Whether or not they could stretch this part of the bill to actually authorize the IRS to remove a US citizen's right to bear arms - I don't know. But it is something that made me wonder if they would try to push the limit.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's amazing how far the IRS can go. (I've been battling with them for a year now.. amazingly I have proven TWICE that I don't owe them money but they say they never got the paperwork). There is very little in the way of oversight or accountablitly.

[Serephino]

No, they shouldn't take away the right to own a firearm if you're on the no-fly list.  I've heard stories of little kids not being allowed on the plane because their name was on it.  I think it was just another person with the same name, but, oh yes, they've handled that well, haven't they?

The passport thing I think is an attempt to keep people that owe money from fleeing the country.  It's not so bad in theory.  The problem lies where you have a situation like Callie; they say you owe money when you don't. 

[RubySlippers]

Why leave the country owing $50k or even $200k, if your talking major money they will leave and not have an issue they can get fake papers or buy themselves into many nations not friendly to the US.

If I owed that much I would just get a fake paper set, change my name and go fully into the underground economy and dissappear working at what I do now just change my act some street performing and get a local permit in a new place to see soda and water for extra cash. I could live well doing that the way I live. And live only on cash.

But for me a fake passport would be out of the question that is a very high tier document now. I just don't see how this will help in most cases of owed money to the IRS its not much of a stick. And if you owe private debts the big reason many would leave it won't stop them at all.

[Callie Del Noire]

It won't last. Just wait till someone with clout is hit.  Then it will be just something for the 'little people'.

[SilentScreams]

I believe, but I could be wrong since I don't deal with criminal or tax matters, that the IRS can revoke your right to own a firearm.

It isn't the IRS, exactly, that's doing it. Not paying your taxes is a felony, being convicted of a felony strips you of certain rights. One of the rights that is usually the first to go is the right to bear arms.

It's not exactly the IRS stripping you of this right but when they say you owe taxes and if it gets to court and you are convicted then you have been found guilty of a felony and so may not be able to own firearms.

[Trieste]

The IRS already has enough (possibly too much) power over private citizens. It's ridiculous.

[Callie Del Noire]

The IRS already has enough (possibly too much) power over private citizens. It's ridiculous.

And much of it has just been put in place with little or no legislative moves. At least this was done as a bill.

[SilentScreams]

I agree. It is totally absurd what they can get away with. The IRS terrorizes normal citizens and no one holds them accountable for what they do. No one reviews their work, and their is no agency to act as a watchdog over them.

[SilentScreams]

Unfortunately, there doesn't need to be any legislation once it has been created. All that is required is what's called an enabling statute which is passed by congress and creates the agency. The enabling statute will also tell the new agency what it is supposed to do. The agency is empowered under that statute to create their own internal rules and regulations and enact their own enforcement mechanisms within the scope of the statute passed by congress.

The biggest problem, which is hopefully going to change now that the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA last month, is that there has historically been no judicial oversight of these agencies.

The historic view has been that so long as the statute passed by congress passed constitutional muster the agency could pretty much do as they pleased so long as their rules did not expand their mission as set forth by congress.

However, last month the Supremes ruled against the EPA as they tried to fine a home owner under their internal rules. This could potentially change the landscape of administrative law as it would potentially appear as if the Supremes have given the courts judicial review over the rules and regulations of those agencies.

[Etah dna Evol]

The historic view has been that so long as the statute passed by congress passed constitutional muster the agency could pretty much do as they pleased so long as their rules did not expand their mission as set forth by congress.

I think this has always been, because of a misinterpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Doctrines that go along with it. It has always been assumed that if the government proves that a law is part of a legitimate government purpose, that it is Constitutional on its face. I believe his along with a really wide interpretation of the Commerce Clause has allowed Congress to systematically overstep is carefully Enumerated powers. Ruling against the EPA is a positive step. Overturning the Constitutional travesty that is Obamacare, will hopefully be the next positive step.