Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider the IRS's tax collection powers and constitutional authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause and Takings Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("IRC") grants the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") collection powers for the income, and other, taxes vastly in excess of powers available to ordinary creditors. The IRS has been so empowered by two different sources of law, both of which arise exclusively from this Court’s rulings: (1) beginning with United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486 (1878), this Court has been ruling that the IRS succeeded to the absolute, powers to collect taxes of the King of England, powers precluding all defenses otherwise available to debtors against creditors AND (2) federal courts have been applying this Court’s jurisprudence arising out of its interpretation — as shown in United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) etc. — of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution’s Article I § 8 as authority granting the IRS discretionary power over all questions in administering the tax laws against citizens if it claims to have any purported "rational basis" for any of its decisions. The questions presented are: 1. Whether this Court should overrule United States v. Thompson, and all of the cases which followed it, which relied on its declaration of inherent (unstated in the Constitution), absolute, sovereign tax-collection power in the central, federal government vis-a-vis U.S. citizens, i and rule instead that the federal government has no such inherent powers to collect the income tax authorized by the 16th Amendment above and beyond those of an ordinary creditor. 2. Whether this Court should overrule United States v. Carolene Prods. Co, and Wickard v. Filburn — and all of the cases following them which ruled that the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution's Article I § 8 provides the central, federal government the power to police any and all "commercial" behavior of citizens and businesses, granting it plenary power to issue orders to the citizens to do anything having any “commercial” aspect simply because it claims any such order has any "rational basis" — and rule that, instead, the Interstate Commerce clause does not grant the federal government such _ discretionary power to dictate/police actions by individual citizens or businesses. 3. Whether the Takings clause of the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment together, and each, separately, preclude Executive branch agencies of the central, federal government, including the IRS, from exercising discretionary power to impose (or withhold) penalties of any kind unilaterally, with no judicial due process, on individual citizens and businesses of the United States. ii