If money, as the Supreme court ruled in Citizens United, is speech, then is taxing my money a restraint of or infringement upon my first amendment rights.
Should I have to pay taxes on my money, which has been deemed speech?
Seems like this could be an interesting way to address Citizens United.
If my theory makes sense, perhaps refusal to pay taxes, based on Citizens United, could work.
Perhaps it will set up a dilemma for the Supreme court
Any constitutional lawyers out there want to comment?