If we have the right to own property in the US, then when the government forces me to pay property tax every year, aren’t I really renting property as oppose to owning it? Would that make property tax unconstitutional?

exactly! at least you are understanding correctly. you NEVER really ever own the property that way. and yes it is unconstitutional.

Property tax clearly prohibits the ownership of property. No rational person believes an owner is someone who must make payments to another to keep what they own. Property tax "FORCES" you into government servitude to keep your home. This makes property tax more like slavery than ownership. Definitely it can be stated that property tax is the evolution serfdom where kings and lords have been replaced by rulers of the state. You can own your pants and your shirt but because of property tax no one can own a home. The American dream is a lie.

So besides prohibiting the ownership of property what else do property taxes do? In that liberty can be defined as freedom from debt it is also true that property tax prohibits the “acquisition” of liberty. Property tax is the only tax that forces you into debt. It can never be paid off and if you can’t pay them the government kicks you and your family out of your home into the street.

If prohibiting home ownership and denying the people their right to acquire liberty are not unconstitutional then I suggest we need a new constitution.

That the state retains ownership of everybody's property is an undeniable fact. That, homesteaders are not homeowners and that they are just paying rent to the state is an undeniable fact. The owner is the one with the right to acquire possession of property when the renter fails to make payment. That the state has this right because of property tax is obvious.

If you had no idea it was the government demanding payment and not a landlord the only difference you would be able to discern from conventional rent would be the terms of your rental agreement. All the material facts that determine who the owner is and what a renter is remain the same. All arguments which try to prove that property tax is not the logical equivalent of rent are based on the justification of the tax and are irrational from the prospective of what is ownership and what is a renter.

If we are to believe that the state is not the owner charging homesteaders rent we would have to conclude that an owner is some one who has to make payment to someone else or lose possession of their property. This is absurd and a complete contradiction of what is ownership.

Our government needs to quit lying to the people and just come out and admit they are unwilling to let the people own their homes.

Perhaps the reason our government and others persist in this lie is that if the truth were known property tax would be found to be unconstitutional. One can only hope so.

In addition, thanks to the Reagan Administration, the Homestead Act was repealed and therefore there is no longer any free land. If land is not privately owned and taxed, it is federal property. Good one Republican party! Land of the free.

Wherever you live, you expect your local government to provide certain services to you:
Fire and police protection, a building department that essentially makes sure that buildings will not fall down on top of you, a health department to ensure that you will not get sick when visiting public places, a public works department to ensure that the infrastructure is maintained, and a school system to insure that you have an educated workforce. The property tax is the method of allocating the costs of running our society amongst the people. Without a local source of revenue your local govenment would cease to exist very quickly

The right to exist and sustain one's self by lawful means is a God given, Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right, and is not a privilege granted by the state, nor does the state have the power to suspend such rights. An individual is not subject to a charge (tax, permit fee, license fee) on the exercise of their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, inalienable, God given rights.

Let facts now be submitted:

I

Acquiring, possessing and protecting property is an inalienable, fundamental right, which is protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States and/or the Constitution of the California Republic. It is not a privilege granted by the state.

"The right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent and inalienable rights of man." (Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance (1795))

"The right to acquire, possess and protect property lies at the foundation of our Constitutional Government and is necessary to the existence of civil liberty and free institutions." (People v. Beach (1983, 2nd Dist.) 147 CA 3d 612, 195 Cal Rptr 381)

"This Constitutional provision refers to the right to acquire and possess the absolute and unqualified title to every species of property recognized by law, with all rights incidental thereto." (Re Archy (1858) 9 C 147)

"The constitution specifies as among other inalienable rights, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property." (Rupp v. Hiveley, 94 CA 667, 271 P 768)

"One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote, and they depend on the outcome of no election." (West Virginia Board of Education et. al., v. Barnette et. al., 319 U.S. 624 (1943))

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1)

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Bill of Rights, Art. XIV)

"Inalienable rights" are defined as "Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." (Black's Law Dictionary)

"Free" is defined as "Not subject to an arbitrary external power; independent: Not in the condition of a slave or serf. Enjoying political independence; as, a free city or nation. Not subject to some particular authority or obligation; released, as from a tax, duty, etc.; hence, released from any onerous condition; as free from pain." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

"Independent" is defined as "Not dependent; not subject to control by others; self governing." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

"Acquire" is defined as: "In Law, to become the owner of property, to make property one's own." (Blacks Law Dictionary)

"Owner" is defined as: "The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property; proprietor. He who has dominion of a thing real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, which he has the right to do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he be prevented by some agreement." (Black's Law Dictionary)

"Dominion" is defined as: "Perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition." (Black's Law Dictionary)

"Possess" is defined as: "To occupy in person, to have in ones actual and physical control; to have the exclusive detention and control of; to have and hold as, property; to have a just right to; to be master of; to own or be entitled to.

It is thus proven that ownership of property is an inalienable, fundamental right of a Citizen of the United States.

II

The legislature or any other law making body of the federal, state or local government cannot impose a charge on the exercise of a fundamental right.

"A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of a license or a tax." (Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907; Freeburg v. Dawson 274 F 240)

"This tax is not a charge for enjoyment of a privilege bestowed by the state. It is an unconstitutional attempt to regulate a right which exists apart from the state authority, which is guaranteed the people by the constitution." (Supra COLLINS)

"Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." (Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.)

"The individual may stand upon his/her constitutional rights as a (state) citizen...His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." (Hale v. Henkel, 291 U.S. 43)

"The power of the legislature to impair such vested rights as are protected by constitutional guaranties has been repeatedly denied." (13 Cal Jur Section 341, page 871 and Section 343, page 875; Also see Billings v. Hall (1857) 7 C 1; Dentzel v. Waldie (1886) 30 C 138; Lux v. Haggin (1886) 69 C 225, 10 P 674; Von Schmidt v. Widber (1894) 105 C 151 and etc.)

"The State has no power to divest or to impair vested rights whether such attempt be made by legislative enactment by municipal ordinance or by change in the constitution of the state." (Favot v. Kingsbury (1929) 98 CA 284, 776 P 1083)

"The power to tax the exercise of a right and/or privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment...A state may not, through a license or tax, impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution...Legislative enactment's providing for taxation, regulation, or prohibition of any activities are not presumed to be constitutional when applied to the exercise of fundamental personal rights, because the legislative declarations are not supreme when confronted with the Bill of Rights...Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way...a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license, fee or tax, the right freely granted by the Constitution'....The fact that the ordinance is 'nondiscriminatory' is immaterial...This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution...Thus, if a tax indirectly suppresses or controls the enjoyment of a constitutional privilege which a legislature cannot directly suppress or control, of course it is bad." (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at page 113, (1943).

By definition, an inalienable right cannot be legally or justly transferred to another. In the case of Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757, (1883), not only did the Supreme Court make a distinction between the 'granting of rights' and the 'securing of rights', but made it clear that these inalienable rights cannot be legally taken away even by 250 million people with the help of their representatives or legislatures on the federal or state level. This same principle is expressed in 63 Supreme Court Reporter, 319 U.S., page 1178 as follows:

"The Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the states protects the citizen against the state itself and all of its creatures..."

"The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of the political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts". (West Virginia Board of Education et. al., v. Barnette et. al., 319 U.S. 624 (1943))

"One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote, and they depend on the outcome of no election." (ibid)

(For further cases see Barney v. Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Dicker v Davis, 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v. Danforth, 12 So. 2d 784)

It is thus proven that NO governmental agency can place a fee on the free exercise of a fundamental, inalienable right.

III

Since the ownership of property is a fundamental, inalienable, God-given, Constitutional right, and, is not a privilege granted by the federal, state, county or city governments, and, since the exercise of such rights cannot have a charge placed on them, a Citizen can refuse to pay taxes placed on these rights and still retain such rights.

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment)

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." (Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945)

"Legislative enactment's providing for taxation, regulation, or prohibition of any activities are not presumed to be constitutional when applied to the exercise of fundamental personal rights, because the legislative declarations are not supreme when confronted with the Bill of Rights...Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way...a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution'" (Murdock v. Penn. idid)

"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." (16 Am Jur (2nd), Const. Law., Sec. 70)

"The state cannot diminish the rights of the people." (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516)

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." (Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24)

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491)

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." (Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489)

"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise; vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526)

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." (16 American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256)

"It is the duty of the Citizen to disobey void and inapplicable laws." (Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 22 LEd 2d 162, 167, 168, 173 (1969)

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." (Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616)

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 2)

It is thus proven that ones right to own property cannot be diminished or deprived because of the refusal to pay a tax to exercise such right.

IV

One must remember that the Constitution does not give or bestow rights, nor does government. Their only purpose is to protect rights, which we already possess. To prove that property cannot be taxed, take the Bill of Rights one by one and ask, "Can a Citizen of the U.S. be charged to Practice their Religion, to Speak, to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances, to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not witness against oneself, to live, to be at liberty, have a jury trial, Vote, be safe, be happy, for their privacy." Of course they couldn't. But, guess what, the right to acquire, possess and protect property is among the aforementioned rights.

Since the ownership of property is an inalienable right, and an inalienable right cannot have a charge placed on it, how is it that the county of Mendocino is taking property without just compensation and selling it out from under those who either cannot or will not pay for the exercise of this right? They are doing it my means of deception, threats, duress, intimidation and coercion! More plainly defined as EXTORTION.

"Extort": synonyms - bleed, exact, wrest, wretch, wring, coerce, compel, demand, force, threaten.

"Extortion": "Act of extorting; act or practice of taking anything from a person by illegal use of fear; technically, LAW, the offense committed by an officer who unlawfully, by COLOR OF HIS OFFICE, claims and takes money or other thing of value that is not due." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Title 18 USC, Section 241 says:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States...They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;..."

Title 18 U.S.C. 242 says:

"Whoever, under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, Territory or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,...Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both..."

By means of the many and numerous taxes, licenses, permits, fees, regulations, statutes, and laws being imposed upon myself by the state of California, and County of Mendocino, my ability to provide for myself and my family is being severely diluted, curtailed, restricted, prohibited, impaired, controlled, suppressed, interfered with, foreclosed upon, diminished, defeated, abrogated, converted into a crime, denied, sanctioned, penalized, injured, oppressed and threatened. At all levels of government, the power to tax is being abused to such a degree that a poor or lower income person such as myself cannot afford to do business, drive an automobile or purchase a home and keep it if I were to continue submitting to these various revenue raising schemes.

At no time have I knowingly, under full disclosure, ever surrendered my inalienable right, nor agreed to pay to exercise my inalienable right, to possess property.

I, herein, hereby, plainly and reasonably assert my federal and state right to acquire, possess and protect property.

This is part of the letter I sent to the county assessors office. I am refusing to pay property tax based on this.

If you would like a copy of the complete letter or would like me to update you on what they do, email me at mwhowse at hotmail dot com

As an American I buy land and a house and pay the sales tax on it, I own it right or do I? Well, why then is it that the government can take it away if I don't give them money for taxes every year i already paid them tax when I bought it? I thought it was mine since I paid for it??? Guess not am I really just renting it? I bought it from someone, tax and all the middle man between me and the government long gone now I have paid him to leave now.. Am I just renting it then from the government since the middleman "The person I bought it from" is no longer in the picture so in reality i really don't own anything ? even though I paid the sales tax already with my already hardearned money that was taxed before i even got it in to my hands. why does the government keep asking me for money and why can they take what I rightfully bought away isn't that stealing? that was my question too
I agree with you 100% I wish there was something we can do cause there doing it with our cars, our money is already taxed when we receive it from our employers, and taxed again if we want to eat that day or buy something we need , house land taxed again over and over again on that one purchase... We are not allowed to pick and choose where we want our money that they are stealing away from us to go ..Since they are forcing us unwillfully to give them our money thats stealing might I add for exapmple for the ones who don't want to get it--- its like a robber holding a gun to your head telling u to give them your money or else they will shoot u but its our houses land and cars they threaten to steal from you instead of shooting you if you don't GIVE THEM SOME MONEYand I'm sure they would for not paying them the goverment probably would shoot you or start war against you hmmm thats a connected topic isn't it... anyways they taxed the money already that paid for these things and they tax that same money every year again an again house, land, cars and taxed it again when we get paid for work this tax thing never ends how much more taxes can they possibly take out of one dollar I say they tax it till there is nothing left not even a penny i guess it depends on what you buy with it DON"T BUY A HOUSE OR A CAR OR LAND OR THAT DOLLAR WILL GET SQUEEZED TILL THERES NOT EVEN A PENNY LEFT, BUT YOU'D STILL OWE TAXES FOR THAT DOLLAR long after its gone WOW-ha lol we don't own anything -- sorry f@@@ing goverment we have, and there broke an we of course are paying for that too..How many people live in the usa and they tax us all like that but the coutry is in debt this sounds like an obsured joke can someone please help me see why this country is broke where is our money there stealing from us---well i want it back !!! fu@k3R%2