Do you think the IRS should be allowed to revoke or deny your passport ?

1. 80

   Draxposted 12 years ago

   Do you think the IRS should be allowed to revoke or deny your passport ?
   
   United States Senate passed a piece of legislation called the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” Section 40304 is titled “Revocation or denial of passport in case at certain tax delinquencies”. The provision specifically amends the 1926 Passport Act to permit the IRS to simply ‘Certify” to the Secretary of State that an individual “has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. The law does not require that any hearing be held or require administrative due process of any kind.
   The Passport Act of 1926 considers travel a “privilege” not a right.
   
   

   report
2. 75

   pagesvoiceposted 12 years ago

   To travel in and out of this country is, in fact, a privilege and not a right. Personally, (okay, get out the slings and arrows) I think it should also be amended to include parents who have been delinquent for over a year on child support payments. Hey, if they have the money to travel out of country then they certainly have the means to pay child support..

   report
   1. 80

      Draxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I cannot agree with that pagesvoice - this makes everyone slaves, without the freedom to simply leave. The key issue is the lack of any hearing be held or an administrative due process of any kind.

      report
3. 60

   Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years ago

   No. In fact it is the IRS that should be revoked. That said, we hear this false claim about what a "privilege" it is to travel in and out of the country. That thought process illustrates a flawed understanding, or perhaps a complete lack of understanding that there exists such a thing as an American Constitution which LIMITS governmental powers and clearly establishes the basic American principles of: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
   
   I'm unclear as to the vagaries of the definition of the term "liberty". Perhaps Mr. Clinton could assist in establishing that liberty means anything other than -- the right to freedom. Obviously the "inalienable" rights to freedom, which are God given (as opposed to government decrees for the heathens that may be lacking the rudimentary education in the Constitution), extend to the right to freely travel.
   
   For example, in the United States one is "innocent" until proven guilty. If a government is charging a citizen with some tax issue -- the government has no legal authority to prevent that individual from traveling until the IRS has proven their case in a court of law.
   
   For if someone is traveling outside the US for gainful employment in order to pay the tax debt, then why would one be denied? In fact it would be denying the individual the right to pursue happiness, whilst at the same time depriving the Treasury of the tax revenue.
   
   Let us put one thing to rest -- Anyone that was born in this country or brought by their parents is NOT in America by CHOICE. Hence, the argument of "privilege" is patently offensive and absurd to the point of being a cliche. Freedom is a RIGHT, therefore ANYTHING that advances that freedom is a RIGHT.
   
   Thank you Drax for the question. It is one that is part of a larger portrait relative to rights and what constitutes a privilege and it is extremely important to the future of America -- because anything can be deemed a "privilege", thereby negating the ideal of "freedom" all together. In fact, how does the 1926 Passport Act differentiate America from any third rate dictatorship that prevents free travel of its citizens?

   report
   1. 80

      Draxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      .. one problem here is Clinton, now it is Obama. Alas there is no provision in the US Constitution for the freedom of travel & this law does not require that any hearing be held or require administrative due process of any kind.

      report
   2. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes there is a provision in the Constitution re travel-because there is no provision giving the GOV the right to control"freedom". All Rights not "expressly" enumerated to gov are the sole purview of the individual.

      report
4. 60

   Civil War Bobposted 12 years ago

   Nope.  Better get used to the idea of showing your "papers" once they're issued for cross STATE lines in the not too distant future when that becomes a requirement to cut down on domestic terrorism as part of Homeland Security's expanded powers.  Just sayin'...

   report
   1. 80

      Draxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      you're probably right Civil War Bob :-(

      report
   2. 77

      daskittlez69posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Now when entering into California from any other state.  You get stopped and asked questions.  Then they give you a handy piece of paper that you have to hold onto for the duration of your stay.

      report
   3. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      daskittlez69, that's incredible! When did that happen to you...recently? But Civil War Bob is correct, b/t Homeland Security and TSA roving road blocks things are beginning to feel different in the US and none of this "change" is good.

      report
   4. 77

      daskittlez69posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Last month I drove to California for a family vacation with my wife and kids from Missouri.

      report
5. 77

   daskittlez69posted 12 years ago

   No, they shouldn't have anything to do with it.  And if you guys want to talk about being against the constitution then lets talk about income tax!  http://daskittlez69.hubpages.com/hub/Wh … -Happiness

   report