By Joe Hill

"Come on, Joe! Just pay your garbage bill and you won’t have a problem. Stop whining!"

That’s been said to me by the few who dare, but it’s in the eyes of most people I’ve talked with lately. It is a seductive argument. Easy on the mind. No requirement to confront the realities beyond that dreamland of TV and the newspapers.

"But, Joe, your case was dismissed; no fines or court costs. Aren’t you happy?"

Not really. It’s an unbelievable relief to be out of the criminal courts, but none of my constitutional concerns were heard.

"Look, Joe, I’m all for the constitution, but I believe in mandatory garbage. If we didn’t have it, people would be letting garbage pile up around their homes and dumping it on their property."

If it’s that important to you, then it should be a tax.

"It is, isn’t it?"

No, sir. The courts have ruled it to be a fee.

"You’re being picky, Joe. What’s the difference?"

Plenty. As a fee, what we have is a precedent of law.

"How so?"

The government can now form a corporation which provides a service and compel the public to purchase that service. If you don’t buy the service, you go to jail.

"But everybody has to have garbage service, Joe!"

Everybody wants electric service too, but no one makes us buy it. Most people want and need a car, but we are not forced by law to drive. Ask yourself this question. With that precedent established, what will be next? What will be the next service or product the government provides that we have to buy? You think it will stop with garbage?

"Yeah, but…"

Then make it a tax.

"But, Joe, you know how hard it is to get a tax enacted!"

You’re willing to violate the Bill of Rights in order to sidestep the procedure of enacting a tax?

"What do you mean, violate the Bill of Rights?"

Have you ever heard of due process of law?

"Yes."

Well, the basic first step of due process is presumed innocence until proven guilty.

"What’s that got to do with anything? I mean, your garbage bill was delinquent, wasn’t it? You’ve said that."

Not the point. The mandatory nature of the law presumes guilt. You’ve already acknowledged that.

"No, I haven’t!"

Sure; you have presumed people are going to violate health laws, and, in order to prevent them from doing so, you’re willing to require that they purchase a service. Without presumed innocence, you may as well use the rest of the Bill of Rights as toilet paper. If it’s a tax, that is no longer an issue.

"Another tax will never happen. I don’t want people piling garbage up around their homes."

Then you really don’t believe in the constitution.

"Of course I do! Why, we’re having free speech right now, aren’t we?"

And so the argument goes; on and on. The educrats want people to think the constitution is about nothing more than free speech, and they want to control what people speak freely about, when and where.

There is far too much about this draconian (but seductive) law to explain in one article, but here’s the short list: presumed guilt, unclear authority, excessive fines, unequal protection of the law, lack of protection of the law, statutory lack of due process, imprisonment for debt, violation of constitutional immunities.