Integrity Legal

4th Apr 2009

During the week, this blog is dedicated to providing legal information about both Thailand and the USA. However, on the weekend we like to write something that feels a little less like work. The following list is composed of laws that have been controversial over the years. It should be noted that many of these laws have had positive side effects, but overall, I felt that whatever benefit they conferred was outweighed by the harm they caused. Either that or I was trying to be funny (and probably failed), that being said, judge the following US Laws for yourself…

5. The Federal Income Tax Amendment

The next time you are frustrated at filling out your tax forms, just thank the American people at the turn of the century for voting in the Federal Income Tax Amendment.

Who enjoys paying their income tax? Well at one time in the United States federal income tax was unconstitutional. At some point around the 1900s some brilliant politicians decided that it was time this was remedied and put forward the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, also known as the Federal Income Tax Amendment. This Amendment made it legal to levy a direct federal income tax upon the American Citizenry. The pertinent language in the Amendment reads:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Keep in mind the next time you pay your taxes that apparently at one point in America this seemed like a good idea. (In its defense, the Federal Income tax has decreased the massive disparities between rich and poor that caused much upheaval in the Early 20th Century, so it has had some positive effect, I just hate paying taxes).

4. The Smoot Hawley Tariff

In 1929, the prevailing wisdom regarding economic stimulus was something akin to an ostrich firmly planting its head in the sand. Apparently, the idea was that if the US raised its tariffs, then all other nations would simply be content to have no foothold in the American market, but not petition their own governments to enact the same tariffs in their countries. As it turned out, this economic reasoning was a tad shortsighted, to say the least.

Smoot and Hawley: An Economically Deadly Combination

Smoot and Hawley: An Economically Deadly Combination

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill was signed into law on June 17, 1930. Its purpose was to raise US Tariffs on over 20,000 imports to unprecedented heights. At the time, more than 1,000 economists signed a petition denouncing the Tariff and, subsequent to the Bill’s passage, many European countries responded by drastically hiking tariffs on products manufactured in the USA, as a result, American imports and exports declined by nearly more than 50%. Contemporary economists argue that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was the driving force behind the steep decline in U.S. trade and one of the main precursors to the Great Depression.

3. The Alien and Sedition Acts

The Patriot act of its time, the Alien & Sedition Acts were actually enacted by the original Patriots in an effort to stifle domestic opponents to the sitting Administration. John Adams signed the bill into law at the behest of is Federalist comrades (keep this in mind when fawning over the late second President in the form of Paul Giamatti).

These acts were promulgated at a time in America when the ruling party was embroiled in a Quasi-war and felt the need to repress dissension among both Americans and “undesirable aliens.” Sound familiar? The most repugnant portion of the legislation made it a criminal offense to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government, its agents, or officials.

Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence (and all around pimp), passionately opposed the Act and even wrote state nullification legislation rejecting the bill as unconstitutional. The Act never was reviewed by the Supreme Court, but many legal scholars believe that it never would have withstood constitutional scrutiny.

TJ Keeping It Real

TJ Keeping It Real

2. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

Lyndon Johnson was a master at manipulating the American legislative process for his own ends and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was possibly his masterpiece of political subterfuge. Framed as a seemingly limited and innocuous joint congressional resolution, the enactment gave the President the authority “to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.”

This Resolution was used as the legal reasoning behind the Administration’s use of armed force in Vietnam without an overt declaration of war by the US Congress.

Not His Best Moment

Not His Most Statesmanlike Moment

In one of the few prescient quotes from an American politician, Senator Wayne Morse exclaimed, “I believe this resolution to be a historic mistake.” His feelings were vindicated, but only after thousands of lives were lost and American international credibility was drastically tarnished.

1. The Patriot Act

Quite possibly the single most despised piece of modern legislation since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, this law basically allows the US government to do whatever they want with regard to citizens and foreign nationals. An excerpt from Wikipedia sums it up nicely (if somewhat dispassionately):

“The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.”

So Orwellian

So Orwellian

This law was passed by some of the widest margins in history and has subsequently become almost universally reviled proving once again that when unrestrained and fueled by fear a government can make some pretty rash and poor decisions. Hopefully, this act will one day be repealed and stand as a reminder that repressive and tyrannical laws are seldom the answer to safety issues.

Thanks for reading.

If you would like to read more about our primary specialty (US Immigration from Thailand) please see: US Visa Thailand.

Tags: , , ,

11 Responses to “The Five Worst Laws in US History”

  1. jerryd says:

    Agree with all but #5. CT v Griswald was a horrible violation of constitutionally guarenteed states rights. The right of privacy can be stretched too far but the Patriot Act, considering its basis, is not a stretch.

  2. TrixRabbi says:

    Replace Income Tax with drug prohibition and I’ll agree. The Income tax helps the country so much. Sure, paying it sucks, but without it education, law enforcement and all sorts of other government sponsored necessities would be even worse off than they are now.

    Drug prohibition on the other hand sends non-violent weed smokers to prison, costing the tax payers millions each year to keep them there, fuels the black market giving violent street gangs 95% of their income, and limits the freedoms of the general public in general. When they tried alcohol in the twenties it failed miserably, why do they keep wasting money on this?

  3. odd logic says:

    if the great depresssion began on october 29 1929 and the smoot hawley tariff was ennacted on june 17 1930, almost a year later, i dont see how it could be considered a precursor to something that was already going on.

  4. admin says:

    I think the patriot act is one giant shredding of the 4th, 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments, which is why I added it to this list.

    Paying taxes is generally just a giant whine from me, but I do actually believe that giving governments more money only causes them to enact more legislation and provides the resources to enforce. Marijuana would be de facto legal were it not for all of the money poured into the DEA to enforce ridiculous drug laws.

    The depression began in 29 and and Smoot Hawley was enacted later. I don’t believ there is any debate that this tariff exacerbated the economic problems

  5. andy says:

    The stock market crashed in ’29. The depression — characterized by high unemployment, deflationary price action, inability to access credit, starvation, etc — didn’t start kicking into full-gear until at least a year later. Liken 1929 to 2008, and we’ll see if 2009-20X turns out to be like 1930-19X.

    TrixRabbi: public education and law enforcement are great, but nearly all of that is locally funded through property and sales taxes, and state income taxes. There’s a difference between saying, “we need some form of tax revenues” and “we need a federal income tax.” Consider that most fed-level expenditures are debt service, military or social security/medicare. I can definitely do without the debt service! And in theory, SS is already funded directly through payroll taxes. This year should be a bit different though… that income tax has given the central bank a way to bailout our financial institutions, so a good portion of this year’s expenditures will go to Wall Street. Still like that federal income tax?

    I’m right with the author on the Patriot Act and right with TrixRabbi on the drug war.

  6. How to Get Six Pack Fast says:

    Hey, nice tips. I’ll buy a bottle of beer to that man from that forum who told me to visit your blog :)

  7. Law says:

    Great blog, yet another great post!

  8. Legal Aid says:

    Excellent post, I wish I’d have found your blog earlier!

  9. Will Uphold says:

    I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles.I enjoying reading your post. You make great points in a concise and pertinent fashion, I will read more of your stuff, many thanks to the author

  10. Alvaro Machak says:

    wicked blog cheers for posting.

  11. I agree with rattler whole-heartedly.. considering the unnecessary size and power of the federal government, the cost should be minimal as it is.

Leave a Reply

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.