YesToHellWith cover art

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

By: and may TRUTH reign supreme!
Listen for free

YesToHellWith is determined to expose the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of Orlando Carter. We are asking that President Trump review this injustice and exonerate Carter.

yestohellwith.substack.comyestohellwith Hourly Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • The path forward is clear...

    The path forward is clear...
    Sep 24 2026
    The Final Constitutional AccountingIt is September 24th, 2026. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.We have reached the end of this investigation.And I am not going to spend this final episode reviewing everything we have already established.It is time for the accounting.The Constitution created a federal government of enumerated powers.That means federal power must have a constitutional source.Not a statutory source.Not an administrative source.Not a judicially invented source.A constitutional source.So after everything we have examined, one question remains:Where is the constitutional bridge?Congress enacted an income tax during the Civil War.But Congress cannot give itself constitutional power.Legislation exercises power already delegated.It does not create the delegation.Where is the bridge?Then came Springer.The Court classified the particular tax before it as an indirect tax.Classification answered the apportionment challenge before the Court.But calling something an excise does not itself identify the constitutional subject upon which that excise operates.Where is the bridge?Then came Pollock.And suddenly classification was not enough.The Court looked through the income to its source and concluded that taxation of income from property could operate as taxation of the property itself.The constitutional limitation had not disappeared merely because Congress called the object “income.”Then came the Sixteenth Amendment.Here was an actual exercise of constitutional power by the people.And what did the Supreme Court subsequently say?The Amendment did not extend the taxing power to new subjects. It removed the apportionment obstacle that otherwise could attach to taxes on income.That matters.Because if the Amendment did not create a new taxing power, then it cannot be casually invoked as though the words “Sixteenth Amendment” answer every question concerning the source and scope of federal taxing authority.Where is the bridge?Then came Flint.And Flint exposed a distinction that should never have been forgotten.The subject of a tax is not necessarily its measure.The Court described the tax there as an excise upon the privilege of doing business in corporate form. Income supplied the measure of the tax.That is constitutional analysis.Identify the subject.Identify the power to tax that subject.Then determine the measure.But somewhere along the way, that discipline became obscured.Income increasingly became both the answer and the explanation.Why can it be taxed?Because it is income.Why does Congress have authority over it?Because Congress taxes income.That is not a constitutional bridge.That is circular reasoning.Then came Macomber.The Court still demanded constitutional substance. Congress could attach a statutory label, but the constitutional inquiry did not necessarily end with the label. The Court examined whether the thing being taxed possessed the characteristics of income.Then came Steward Machine and the broader development of excise doctrine.The old association between excises and privileges was no longer treated as an absolute constitutional boundary.Activities pursued as common rights could fall within an excise.But stop right there.What changed the Constitution?Where was the amendment?Where was the new delegation from the people?If the answer is judicial interpretation, then say so plainly.And then ask the question constitutional government demands:Is the interpretation explaining delegated power—or enlarging it?Those are not the same thing.Courts possess judicial power.They interpret the Constitution.They do not possess the amendment power.They do not receive a blank check to create federal authority merely because an earlier constitutional limitation has become inconvenient.Then came World War II.Millions more Americans entered the income-tax system.Withholding made collection automatic.Employers became collection intermediaries.Federal taxation became embedded in ordinary employment.But administrative success is not constitutional authority.Where is the bridge?Withholding?That is collection.A W-2?That is reporting.A 1040?That is administration.A Treasury regulation?That implements statutory authority.An IRS definition?That interprets a statute.A penalty?That enforces an asserted obligation.A prosecution?That enforces it more severely.None of them answers the antecedent constitutional question.Where did the power come from?Then Glenshaw Glass broadened the operative conception of income beyond the formulation associated with Macomber.Fine.That tells us what may qualify as income under federal tax law.But defining the object does not, standing alone, identify every constitutional step authorizing the exercise of federal power over every person, transaction, or activity to which the statute is applied.And that distinction is the entire point.For more than a century, layer has been placed upon layer.Statute upon statute.Regulation upon regulation.Case upon case.Form upon form.Presumption upon...
    Show More Show Less
    10 mins
  • People of Character MUST fill the Gap!

    People of Character MUST fill the Gap!
    Sep 23 2026



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 9 mins
  • Glenshaw Glass

    Glenshaw Glass
    Sep 23 2026
    Glenshaw Glass: When the Meaning of Income ExpandedIt is September 23rd, 2026. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.We have reached 1955 and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Company.And this case gave the federal government something enormously important:A much broader way of describing income.The case itself was fairly simple.Two corporations received money from lawsuits.Part of that money was punitive damages.Punitive damages are money awarded to punish wrongful conduct.The companies argued that this money was not taxable income.The Supreme Court disagreed.And in explaining why, the Court gave us language that became one of the most important descriptions of income in modern federal tax law.The Court described the money as:“undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.”Put that into ordinary English.Did you become wealthier?Did you actually receive or realize the gain?Did you control it?The Court held that the punitive damages at issue constituted income under federal tax law. That was important because earlier cases had used narrower language.Remember Eisner v. Macomber.In Macomber, the Court had described income as gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined.But Glenshaw Glass said that language was never intended to answer every future question about income.The Court said the Macomber formulation:“was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions.”That opened the door much wider.The question was no longer simply:Did this gain come from labor?Did it come from capital?Did it come from the combination of the two?Now the Court could look directly at the economic gain itself.Did you become wealthier?Was the gain actually realized?Did you control it?If so, Congress’s broad definition of gross income could reach it unless the law excluded it.That is the importance of Glenshaw Glass.But there is something else in the opinion that rarely receives the same attention.The Supreme Court said:“It is conceded by the respondents that there is no constitutional barrier to the imposition of a tax on punitive damages.”Then it said:“Our question is one of statutory construction.”In plain English:The companies were not asking the Supreme Court to decide whether the Constitution gave Congress the power to tax these punitive damages.They had already conceded that point.The Court was deciding whether the tax law Congress had written actually included this money as income.The answer was yes.That is all we need to say about that distinction.Now look at what happened.Congress had written the income-tax law broadly.The Supreme Court interpreted that language broadly.And the older description of income from Macomber would no longer serve as the universal test.The practical result was significant.Income no longer had to fit neatly into the older categories of gain from labor or capital.Punitive damages could qualify.Other realized gains could qualify.The concept had become much broader.And that brings us directly back to the question we have been pursuing throughout this investigation.What exactly has been established?Glenshaw Glass establishes a broad interpretation of gross income under federal tax law.That is important.But identifying something as income is only one part of the inquiry.Suppose someone receives $100,000.The government says:“That is income.”Fine.Now ask:What law taxes it?Then:Who does that law apply to?Then:What constitutional authority supports that application?Those are separate questions.And this distinction is easy to lose because the modern system operates so automatically.Money is received.It is called income.It is reported.A tax is calculated.And government collects.Because that sequence happens millions of times every day, we tend to assume that every question underneath it has already been answered.Victory refuses to make that assumption.It asks us to separate the pieces.Glenshaw Glass answers an important piece:What can Congress’s term “gross income” include?The answer is extremely broad.But the case itself tells us that the constitutional question concerning the punitive damages before the Court was not the question being litigated.That fact matters because we are now approaching the end of this investigation.We started with a simple question:Where did the federal government obtain the constitutional authority being exercised today?We have followed that question through the history.And each stage has given us another piece.But pieces are not enough.They eventually have to connect.So Video Ten will do something different.We are going to stop moving forward through history.We are going to put the evidence on the table.And then we are going to ask whether the constitutional chain actually connects from beginning to end.No assumptions.No shortcuts.No:“Everybody pays it, so the authority must exist.”No:“The government has done it for generations, so somebody must have settled the question....
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.