FrankRep
06-05-2011, 10:01 AM
http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/links/constitution.jpg
Conservatives must exercise sound judgment if they wish to do their part in restoring the principals which are the foundation of our constitutional Republic
Patriot Beware! (http://web.archive.org/web/20000818225119/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm)
Thomas R. Eddlem | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
February 17, 1997
America's political landscape is riddled with ideological pitfalls and snares that threaten the unwary. Those who depend upon the major media for perspective and understanding about the state of the nation are treated to a daily barrage of misinformation and propaganda paraded as unassailable wisdom. For example, the major media constantly peddle the notions that welfare helps the poor but doesn't create dependency, that the President has powers as "Commander in Chief" to assign U.S. troops to UN command at will, and that "assault weapons" in the hands of law-abiding citizens constitute a danger to the public safety.
While Americans whose views the Establishment confines to the "far right" of the political spectrum are less susceptible to the manipulations of the major media, some do fall prey to different myths, often in the form of miracle cures for our political ills. One such panacea is term limits, which has been embraced by some conservatives as a remedy for congressional socialism. Others believe that we should abandon the legislative process altogether and concentrate on nullifying the enforcement of unconstitutional laws through the activism of "fully- informed" juries. A few have even concluded that our situation has grown so grave that patriots must now assume a survivalist profile by stockpiling food and ammunition and organizing into armed militias.
None of the above provides a realistic solution to America's political and cultural difficulties. Such a solution can only be achieved through the creation of a constitutionally literate and principled electorate. Most of the false alternatives serve as distractions to genuine progress. Yet while the above examples constitute a faulty thought process (term limits will make voters wise, there are sufficient numbers of activists to stack juries with regularity or to defeat the U.S. government on the battlefield, etc.), there are a number of distractions based upon outright falsehoods and/or deliberate deceptions. Following are some of those tangents patriots occasionally face on the path to restoring limited constitutional government.
"Americans are misled and deceived into believing that the 'income' tax applies to the general public.... The IRS admits that the 'income' tax system is dependent upon voluntary filing of tax returns." (The Fact Finder, May 16, 1993)
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service does boast that it relies upon the voluntary compliance of most of the public who file returns without being directly hounded by government agents; it is the only way the IRS could stay within its budget. But that doesn't mean there is no mandatory requirement; the IRS does indeed prosecute citizens who don't file. Income taxes, despite our most desperate wishes, are not voluntary; their payment is required of all individuals (unless their income is less than the exemption amount) residing in the United States under Section 6012 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, which states: "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A [governing tax computations] shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...." The penalty for violation of Section 6012 can be found under Section 7203, which calls for up to a $25,000 fine and one year in prison for an individual "who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information."
THE NEW AMERICAN has long opposed the federal income tax, but it should be eliminated through the legislative process and not civil disobedience.
"If the income tax was not imposed upon the incomes of citizens of the United States before the Sixteenth Amendment [because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional], and, as the Supreme Court says, the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the United States Constitution, evidently their income is still not subject to the income tax." (John B. Kotmair, Save-a-Patriot Fellowship, April 25, 1995)
This statement deceptively refers to the 1895 Supreme Court case, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, in which an 1894 income tax law was ruled unconstitutional because it levied an unapportioned tax on income derived from rents and property, and to a post-16th Amendment Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Constitution requires that "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken," and that all indirect taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States." In the pre-16th Amendment Pollock case, the High Court ruled that income taxes on labor and wages were indirect and not in need of apportionment according to congressional representation, but that when the tax was derived from property-related income, like stock dividends and land rents, the tax was essentially a tax upon the property itself and a direct tax in need of apportionment. The Supreme Court threw out the entire income tax law on the basis that Congress could not possibly have foreseen the entire burden of the income tax being borne by wages (the element of the tax the Court deemed to be constitutional).
In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. that the 16th Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation...." It is interesting that income tax protesters often cite the Baltic case, which upheld the imposition of the federal income tax upon individuals. That same decision went on to say that although it conferred no new power of taxation, the 16th Amendment "simply prohibited the previous and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."
In other words, according to this ruling the 16th Amendment changed how the income tax would be laid rather than whether it could be laid (which the entire Supreme Court has always agreed was already within the power of Congress). The 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, simply lifted the constitutional requirement that income taxes would have to be apportioned because some of the proceeds of the tax would come from property, and moved the entire tax into the category of indirect taxes for constitutional purposes. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (1916): "It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned ... but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Individuals who cite such Supreme Court cases to claim that the income tax is unconstitutional despite the 16th Amendment do so under either obstinate and invincible ignorance or intentional deceit.
"Wages or compensation for labor is not taxable [under an income tax]." (Media Bypass, April 1996)
Wages have always been considered taxable income. The first federal income tax, levied in 1862, called for the tax "upon the annual gains, profits or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever." That tax was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in Springer v. United States (1880). As already noted, when the Supreme Court overturned the income tax law of 1894 because the tax was unapportioned, the Court ruled that only unapportioned taxes levied against income derived from rents and dividends were unconstitutional, while taxes on income derived from labor were indirect taxes and therefore constitutional. The entire statute was voided because, the High Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., striking only income taxes derived from property "would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of Congress."
The current U.S. Code (Title 26, Section 61) defines the gross income subject to U.S. income taxation as "all income from whatever source derived, including ... (1) Compensation for services." And wages fall within the bounds of compensation for services.
"[The public record] irrefutably shows that not one, but several, egregious frauds were committed in the purported ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. That amendment was, thus, not ratified at all and any appearance of ratification which may exist has no foundation because of the frauds committed by parties involved in the ratification process." (The Law That Never Was, Vol. II, by Bill Benson, 1986)
The 16th Amendment was a direct response to the 1895 Supreme Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. The reaction to that decision was one of outrage among Populist Party agitators and their sympathizers within the Democratic Party, who browbeat the public into accepting the amendment. There was little organized opposition to the income tax by the time the Congress had submitted the income tax (16th) amendment to the states for ratification in 1909. The amendment passed the Senate without a single "nay" vote, and only 14 opposed the income tax in the House. The votes were similarly lopsided in most state legislatures.
Bill Benson's contention that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and is therefore invalid rests on the fact that most of the states which ratified the 16th Amendment did so by ratifying resolutions which varied slightly from the amendment submitted by Congress. However, all of the variations in the state-passed resolutions are clearly attributable to grammatical oversights and improper transcription rather than fraud or any substantive change in the amendment. In his two-volume work, The Law that Never Was, Benson never successfully demonstrates that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified; in fact, his research all but proves the opposite. Benson doesn't even attempt to contend that the states were under the impression that they were ratifying some amendment other than the income tax; there was only one income tax amendment submitted to the states by Congress, and the issue was well known in state legislative circles.
The only interesting case made by Benson is that Kentucky never appeared to complete the ratification process. The legislature in that state passed a resolution with grammatical mistakes (compared to the congressional amendment), and it was vetoed by the state's anti-income tax governor. Realizing the errors, the Kentucky House again took up the amendment and passed another bill. There is some controversy as to whether the Senate passed or rejected the amendment the second time (according to Benson, the Senate journal extracts recorded the amendment as having been passed while the official journal recorded the measure as having been rejected). In any event, the Kentucky legislature appeared to be satisfied that it had ratified the amendment. But even income tax advocates of the day fretted about the appropriateness of including Kentucky among those having ratified the amendment. Income tax advocate Kossuth Kent Kennan wrote of Kentucky in his 1910 book Income Taxation that "there is some question to the regularity of the proceedings" and worried about the consequences if "the vote of Kentucky should become necessary to make up the total of thirty-six states favoring the amendment." It was, indeed, one of the 36.
As to the governor's veto, it was immaterial. When Congress declared the amendment ratified in 1913, it did so on the basis of the constitutional requirement that amendments be ratified only by the legislatures of the states or by state ratifying conventions (the mode of ratification determined by Congress). Moreover, to this day Kentucky has not contested its inclusion among those states having ratified the income tax amendment.
Interestingly, most of those who cite the Benson book do so in order to excuse themselves from paying income taxes on their wages, which the Supreme Court has always ruled an indirect tax not in need of apportionment. In other words, the Supreme Court would still uphold unapportioned income taxes on the wage income of individuals even if the 16th Amendment were repealed. The only realistic means of freeing this nation from Karl Marx's income tax is for Americans to force Congress to repeal the statutes allowing for the income tax, along with those unconstitutional welfare-state laws which necessitate an onerous tax burden.
"Citizens born in the Sovereign 50 states were not born in a territory over which the United States is Sovereign! Therefore the Citizens of the 50 states are not the subjects of the graduated direct income tax." (Vultures in Eagle's Clothing, by Lynne Meredith, 1994)
This statement is based upon the misconception that the general taxation power of the Congress is limited by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution; it is not. That clause grants Congress the power to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessation of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."
Of course, the exclusive jurisdiction within federal territories granted by Clause 17 is in addition to other enumerated federal powers within the states, not a limitation upon them. The federal government may levy any kind of tax it chooses (except a tax on exports), either direct or indirect, within the 50 states. The only limitation on the taxation power is that indirect taxes must be "uniform" throughout the United States and direct taxes must be apportioned according to congressional representation. (The 16th Amendment to the Constitution puts the income tax in the category of taxation requiring uniformity.) To suggest that the Founding Fathers drafted a federal constitution only for the District of Columbia and its territories is ludicrous. The District of Columbia did not even exist at the time and was established to provide a seat for the national government.
"Social Security tax is just another income tax that you voluntarily agreed to pay." (Media Bypass, April 1996)
By law, all wage-earners are required to pay social security tax under Section 3101 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (self-employed individuals pay under Section 1401), and the only exception under the law is for a few religious orders approved by the Treasury Department. Incidentally, a rider on the implementing legislation for the GATT/WTO treaty passed by Congress during a lame-duck session of the 103rd Congress requires all Americans to have a Social Security number from birth beginning January 1, 1997.
"All Americans can set themselves Free with the Stroke of a Pen by simply Giving Absolute Voluntary Jurisdiction to the Common Law Court, and Demanding their Relief and Remedies for their Grievances." (Emilio L. Ippolito, founder of the Common Law Court of the People, November 2, 1995)
If Emilio Ippolito has gained freedom with the stroke of a pen in creating a "common law court," why is it that he has been spending so much time in prison? Here is some background on the common law and the citizen's groupings marketing themselves as common law courts.
"Common law" is a generic term describing the legal system the American states inherited from England at the time of independence. Common law developed in England over the last 900 years or so, but is generally traced to its beginnings during the reign of Edward I in 1100. Edward's curia rode circuits to institute justice throughout England and generally came to enforce the same laws equitably to all areas of the country in the king's jurisdictions. Although these commonly enforced laws initially applied only to feudal nobles, the Magna Carta of 1215 and subsequent legislation enacted by the English kings gradually increased the jurisdiction and reach of the common law over the various local feudal and ecclesiastical courts.
Over the centuries common law has acquired a number of characteristics which protect individual rights, such as the right to a trial by jury, the right to face an accuser in open court, protection against search and seizure, etc. The English Petition of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1688) in England added greatly to a body of law which set common law rights above the whims of the Crown. In court, common law involves decisions arrived at by precedent, with cases arising from actual controversies. One of the greatest influences on the American common law system at the time of independence was Sir William Blackstone's four-volume Commentaries, which were based upon a series of 1756 lectures at Oxford. The Founding Fathers frequently cited Blackstone's Commentaries in their correspondence, particularly the first volume which expounded the rights of Englishmen, and used many of his arguments as justification for secession from England. The Founders were also influenced by Sir Edward Coke, a great exponent of common law who affirmed the principle that the common law can control and supersede an act of parliament.
The term "common law" is often employed to differentiate from the civil law system used by non-English-speaking countries as well as to distinguish from equity law and specialized types of law and courts used in the United States, such as admiralty law on the federal level and family and juvenile law on the state level. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution "in [common] law and equity," as well as in cases arising from the military, the states, or federal officials.
"Common law courts" have been springing up in recent years through the efforts of some misguided individuals. Some are followers of Eugene Schroder's bizarre theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended.*
* Others seek declarations of state citizenship (or Republic of Texas citizenship) in a vain attempt to evade either income taxes or federal jurisdiction in some other controversy. Still others seek to "prosecute" elected officials for alleged "crimes."
If true, this would mean that the federal government is not now violating the Constitution by exercising extra constitutional powers, since the government can hardly violate a law that has already been suspended. In truth, of course, the Constitution has not been suspended; it is waiting to be used.
The creation of "common law courts" by the fiat of certain individuals is usually based on the false suppositions that common law was abolished in the United States at some time during the 20th century and that anyone can create his own common law court under the Constitution. Yet none of the so-called common law courts which THE NEW AMERICAN has examined even pretends to cite a specific provision of the U.S. or state constitutions authorizing private citizens to create such a court.
These common law court "judges" are not elected by anyone other than the small circle of zealots who peddle their deviant common law court theories, and they are not appointed by elected officials. These "courts" therefore violate the fundamental principle of American government which requires the consent of the governed. Although not directly part of the common law, the consent of the governed has long been associated with the common law and can be traced back to the Magna Carta itself, which required the consent of the nobles for the king to impose an "aid or scutage [tax]." More often than not, these unelected "common law courts" pass illegitimate multi-million dollar "judgments" against elected officials and legitimate government entities. One such court notified Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton that her enforcement of "illegal" laws had resulted in a "judgment" against her of $3.7 billion in punitive damages. The Dallas Morning News received a $1 billion judgment against it from the "Common Law Court of Pleas"; the Montana Freemen offered a $1 million bounty on the local sheriff through its bogus common law court; and another "common law" court, deciding in favor of the "Republic of Texas," handed down a judgment of more than $93 trillion against the U.S. government and other entities.
These "common law courts" do not apply law, have no legitimacy as courts, and do not rule in any sort of common manner. They are nothing more than lynch mobs without a rope.
"[I]t is now resolved at law that the Republic of Texas is re-installed as its own free and independent Nation among nations, and is subject only to its treaties authorized by its Constitution." (John C. VanKirk, "President" of the Republic of Texas movement, January 5, 1996)
A few Texans claim to have initiated a constitutional convention and set up their own "provisional" national government, but there is no legitimacy to either their "government" or their rulings. It should be noted that the unelected Republic of Texas (RT) leaders have no appreciation of the fact that legitimate government requires the consent of the governed -- a concept embraced by the Founding Fathers of both the United States and Texas.
Leaders of the Republic of Texas plan to hold a Texas constitutional convention by January 7, 1998. They assert that Texas was never legally annexed by the United States, the intent and best efforts of Stephen Austin and Sam Houston notwithstanding. The crux of their argument is that Congress did not have the power to annex Texas into the union under the Constitution because Texas was a foreign nation at the time. In point of fact, not only does Congress have exclusive power to admit new states into the union under Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, but there is no limitation against annexation of foreign nations within that section.
The self-appointed, would-be rulers of Texas have been issuing ludicrous statements which are at odds with conservative and constitutional principles as well as with common sense. John VanKirk's successor as "President" of the Republic of Texas, Archie Lowe, remarked in an October 11, 1996 press release, "The conditions in Texas have reached the same point as Nazi Germany in 1939." This "Republic" has appealed to the freedom-threatening United Nations requesting UN recognition of Texas as an independent nation. RT has also proclaimed amnesty and full citizenship for all illegal aliens "domiciling on the soil of Texas for at least six months." And it has encouraged its "citizens" to form "common law courts" in every county in Texas.
Like the leaders of the RT provisional government, the officers of the common law courts are not elected by anybody (except the tiny group signing "citizenship" papers for RT) and are not appointed by any elected official. As already indicated, one such "common law court" evidenced the bizarre nature of such bodies by demanding for the RT a judgment of $93,492,827,008,096.00 in gold against the federal government, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Roman Catholic Church at the Vatican.
Richard McLaren, RT "Chief Ambassador and General Consul," has served time in the Midland County Detention Center on contempt of court charges relating to his unwillingness to cooperate with a legitimate court hearing related to his filing of bogus liens against the Stewart Title Guarantee Company. Stewart Title eventually won a $1.8 million judgment against McLaren plus a permanent injunction prohibiting McLaren from initiating future bogus liens against Stewart Title, according to the June 8, 1996 Dallas Morning News.
More dangerously, the "Republic" has circulated petitions in which signees "renounce" U.S. and Texas State citizenship and pledge to "support and defend" the Republic of Texas. Although the RT has not yet been involved in any violence, continued frustration resulting from its failure to attain its goals could cause its "Secretary of Defense" to initiate RT action going beyond the issuing of bogus liens through its authorized "common law courts." Militia organizations throughout Texas have been allying themselves with the RT for the last several months. And McLaren has threatened to use "bodily force" if federal marshals attempt to arrest him for failing to appear in court for charges related to the bogus liens filed by the RT. Moreover, federal officials could use the RT forms renouncing U.S. citizenship as evidence of sedition in later court prosecutions -- particularly if violence erupts. Conservatives would do well to ignore these self- appointed wanna-be rulers of the RT.
More....
Conservatives must exercise sound judgment if they wish to do their part in restoring the principals which are the foundation of our constitutional Republic
Patriot Beware! (http://web.archive.org/web/20000818225119/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm)
Thomas R. Eddlem | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
February 17, 1997
America's political landscape is riddled with ideological pitfalls and snares that threaten the unwary. Those who depend upon the major media for perspective and understanding about the state of the nation are treated to a daily barrage of misinformation and propaganda paraded as unassailable wisdom. For example, the major media constantly peddle the notions that welfare helps the poor but doesn't create dependency, that the President has powers as "Commander in Chief" to assign U.S. troops to UN command at will, and that "assault weapons" in the hands of law-abiding citizens constitute a danger to the public safety.
While Americans whose views the Establishment confines to the "far right" of the political spectrum are less susceptible to the manipulations of the major media, some do fall prey to different myths, often in the form of miracle cures for our political ills. One such panacea is term limits, which has been embraced by some conservatives as a remedy for congressional socialism. Others believe that we should abandon the legislative process altogether and concentrate on nullifying the enforcement of unconstitutional laws through the activism of "fully- informed" juries. A few have even concluded that our situation has grown so grave that patriots must now assume a survivalist profile by stockpiling food and ammunition and organizing into armed militias.
None of the above provides a realistic solution to America's political and cultural difficulties. Such a solution can only be achieved through the creation of a constitutionally literate and principled electorate. Most of the false alternatives serve as distractions to genuine progress. Yet while the above examples constitute a faulty thought process (term limits will make voters wise, there are sufficient numbers of activists to stack juries with regularity or to defeat the U.S. government on the battlefield, etc.), there are a number of distractions based upon outright falsehoods and/or deliberate deceptions. Following are some of those tangents patriots occasionally face on the path to restoring limited constitutional government.
"Americans are misled and deceived into believing that the 'income' tax applies to the general public.... The IRS admits that the 'income' tax system is dependent upon voluntary filing of tax returns." (The Fact Finder, May 16, 1993)
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service does boast that it relies upon the voluntary compliance of most of the public who file returns without being directly hounded by government agents; it is the only way the IRS could stay within its budget. But that doesn't mean there is no mandatory requirement; the IRS does indeed prosecute citizens who don't file. Income taxes, despite our most desperate wishes, are not voluntary; their payment is required of all individuals (unless their income is less than the exemption amount) residing in the United States under Section 6012 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, which states: "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A [governing tax computations] shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...." The penalty for violation of Section 6012 can be found under Section 7203, which calls for up to a $25,000 fine and one year in prison for an individual "who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information."
THE NEW AMERICAN has long opposed the federal income tax, but it should be eliminated through the legislative process and not civil disobedience.
"If the income tax was not imposed upon the incomes of citizens of the United States before the Sixteenth Amendment [because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional], and, as the Supreme Court says, the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the United States Constitution, evidently their income is still not subject to the income tax." (John B. Kotmair, Save-a-Patriot Fellowship, April 25, 1995)
This statement deceptively refers to the 1895 Supreme Court case, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, in which an 1894 income tax law was ruled unconstitutional because it levied an unapportioned tax on income derived from rents and property, and to a post-16th Amendment Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Constitution requires that "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken," and that all indirect taxes "shall be uniform throughout the United States." In the pre-16th Amendment Pollock case, the High Court ruled that income taxes on labor and wages were indirect and not in need of apportionment according to congressional representation, but that when the tax was derived from property-related income, like stock dividends and land rents, the tax was essentially a tax upon the property itself and a direct tax in need of apportionment. The Supreme Court threw out the entire income tax law on the basis that Congress could not possibly have foreseen the entire burden of the income tax being borne by wages (the element of the tax the Court deemed to be constitutional).
In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. that the 16th Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation...." It is interesting that income tax protesters often cite the Baltic case, which upheld the imposition of the federal income tax upon individuals. That same decision went on to say that although it conferred no new power of taxation, the 16th Amendment "simply prohibited the previous and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."
In other words, according to this ruling the 16th Amendment changed how the income tax would be laid rather than whether it could be laid (which the entire Supreme Court has always agreed was already within the power of Congress). The 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, simply lifted the constitutional requirement that income taxes would have to be apportioned because some of the proceeds of the tax would come from property, and moved the entire tax into the category of indirect taxes for constitutional purposes. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (1916): "It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned ... but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Individuals who cite such Supreme Court cases to claim that the income tax is unconstitutional despite the 16th Amendment do so under either obstinate and invincible ignorance or intentional deceit.
"Wages or compensation for labor is not taxable [under an income tax]." (Media Bypass, April 1996)
Wages have always been considered taxable income. The first federal income tax, levied in 1862, called for the tax "upon the annual gains, profits or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever." That tax was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in Springer v. United States (1880). As already noted, when the Supreme Court overturned the income tax law of 1894 because the tax was unapportioned, the Court ruled that only unapportioned taxes levied against income derived from rents and dividends were unconstitutional, while taxes on income derived from labor were indirect taxes and therefore constitutional. The entire statute was voided because, the High Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., striking only income taxes derived from property "would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of Congress."
The current U.S. Code (Title 26, Section 61) defines the gross income subject to U.S. income taxation as "all income from whatever source derived, including ... (1) Compensation for services." And wages fall within the bounds of compensation for services.
"[The public record] irrefutably shows that not one, but several, egregious frauds were committed in the purported ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. That amendment was, thus, not ratified at all and any appearance of ratification which may exist has no foundation because of the frauds committed by parties involved in the ratification process." (The Law That Never Was, Vol. II, by Bill Benson, 1986)
The 16th Amendment was a direct response to the 1895 Supreme Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. The reaction to that decision was one of outrage among Populist Party agitators and their sympathizers within the Democratic Party, who browbeat the public into accepting the amendment. There was little organized opposition to the income tax by the time the Congress had submitted the income tax (16th) amendment to the states for ratification in 1909. The amendment passed the Senate without a single "nay" vote, and only 14 opposed the income tax in the House. The votes were similarly lopsided in most state legislatures.
Bill Benson's contention that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and is therefore invalid rests on the fact that most of the states which ratified the 16th Amendment did so by ratifying resolutions which varied slightly from the amendment submitted by Congress. However, all of the variations in the state-passed resolutions are clearly attributable to grammatical oversights and improper transcription rather than fraud or any substantive change in the amendment. In his two-volume work, The Law that Never Was, Benson never successfully demonstrates that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified; in fact, his research all but proves the opposite. Benson doesn't even attempt to contend that the states were under the impression that they were ratifying some amendment other than the income tax; there was only one income tax amendment submitted to the states by Congress, and the issue was well known in state legislative circles.
The only interesting case made by Benson is that Kentucky never appeared to complete the ratification process. The legislature in that state passed a resolution with grammatical mistakes (compared to the congressional amendment), and it was vetoed by the state's anti-income tax governor. Realizing the errors, the Kentucky House again took up the amendment and passed another bill. There is some controversy as to whether the Senate passed or rejected the amendment the second time (according to Benson, the Senate journal extracts recorded the amendment as having been passed while the official journal recorded the measure as having been rejected). In any event, the Kentucky legislature appeared to be satisfied that it had ratified the amendment. But even income tax advocates of the day fretted about the appropriateness of including Kentucky among those having ratified the amendment. Income tax advocate Kossuth Kent Kennan wrote of Kentucky in his 1910 book Income Taxation that "there is some question to the regularity of the proceedings" and worried about the consequences if "the vote of Kentucky should become necessary to make up the total of thirty-six states favoring the amendment." It was, indeed, one of the 36.
As to the governor's veto, it was immaterial. When Congress declared the amendment ratified in 1913, it did so on the basis of the constitutional requirement that amendments be ratified only by the legislatures of the states or by state ratifying conventions (the mode of ratification determined by Congress). Moreover, to this day Kentucky has not contested its inclusion among those states having ratified the income tax amendment.
Interestingly, most of those who cite the Benson book do so in order to excuse themselves from paying income taxes on their wages, which the Supreme Court has always ruled an indirect tax not in need of apportionment. In other words, the Supreme Court would still uphold unapportioned income taxes on the wage income of individuals even if the 16th Amendment were repealed. The only realistic means of freeing this nation from Karl Marx's income tax is for Americans to force Congress to repeal the statutes allowing for the income tax, along with those unconstitutional welfare-state laws which necessitate an onerous tax burden.
"Citizens born in the Sovereign 50 states were not born in a territory over which the United States is Sovereign! Therefore the Citizens of the 50 states are not the subjects of the graduated direct income tax." (Vultures in Eagle's Clothing, by Lynne Meredith, 1994)
This statement is based upon the misconception that the general taxation power of the Congress is limited by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution; it is not. That clause grants Congress the power to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessation of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."
Of course, the exclusive jurisdiction within federal territories granted by Clause 17 is in addition to other enumerated federal powers within the states, not a limitation upon them. The federal government may levy any kind of tax it chooses (except a tax on exports), either direct or indirect, within the 50 states. The only limitation on the taxation power is that indirect taxes must be "uniform" throughout the United States and direct taxes must be apportioned according to congressional representation. (The 16th Amendment to the Constitution puts the income tax in the category of taxation requiring uniformity.) To suggest that the Founding Fathers drafted a federal constitution only for the District of Columbia and its territories is ludicrous. The District of Columbia did not even exist at the time and was established to provide a seat for the national government.
"Social Security tax is just another income tax that you voluntarily agreed to pay." (Media Bypass, April 1996)
By law, all wage-earners are required to pay social security tax under Section 3101 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (self-employed individuals pay under Section 1401), and the only exception under the law is for a few religious orders approved by the Treasury Department. Incidentally, a rider on the implementing legislation for the GATT/WTO treaty passed by Congress during a lame-duck session of the 103rd Congress requires all Americans to have a Social Security number from birth beginning January 1, 1997.
"All Americans can set themselves Free with the Stroke of a Pen by simply Giving Absolute Voluntary Jurisdiction to the Common Law Court, and Demanding their Relief and Remedies for their Grievances." (Emilio L. Ippolito, founder of the Common Law Court of the People, November 2, 1995)
If Emilio Ippolito has gained freedom with the stroke of a pen in creating a "common law court," why is it that he has been spending so much time in prison? Here is some background on the common law and the citizen's groupings marketing themselves as common law courts.
"Common law" is a generic term describing the legal system the American states inherited from England at the time of independence. Common law developed in England over the last 900 years or so, but is generally traced to its beginnings during the reign of Edward I in 1100. Edward's curia rode circuits to institute justice throughout England and generally came to enforce the same laws equitably to all areas of the country in the king's jurisdictions. Although these commonly enforced laws initially applied only to feudal nobles, the Magna Carta of 1215 and subsequent legislation enacted by the English kings gradually increased the jurisdiction and reach of the common law over the various local feudal and ecclesiastical courts.
Over the centuries common law has acquired a number of characteristics which protect individual rights, such as the right to a trial by jury, the right to face an accuser in open court, protection against search and seizure, etc. The English Petition of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1688) in England added greatly to a body of law which set common law rights above the whims of the Crown. In court, common law involves decisions arrived at by precedent, with cases arising from actual controversies. One of the greatest influences on the American common law system at the time of independence was Sir William Blackstone's four-volume Commentaries, which were based upon a series of 1756 lectures at Oxford. The Founding Fathers frequently cited Blackstone's Commentaries in their correspondence, particularly the first volume which expounded the rights of Englishmen, and used many of his arguments as justification for secession from England. The Founders were also influenced by Sir Edward Coke, a great exponent of common law who affirmed the principle that the common law can control and supersede an act of parliament.
The term "common law" is often employed to differentiate from the civil law system used by non-English-speaking countries as well as to distinguish from equity law and specialized types of law and courts used in the United States, such as admiralty law on the federal level and family and juvenile law on the state level. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution "in [common] law and equity," as well as in cases arising from the military, the states, or federal officials.
"Common law courts" have been springing up in recent years through the efforts of some misguided individuals. Some are followers of Eugene Schroder's bizarre theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended.*
* Others seek declarations of state citizenship (or Republic of Texas citizenship) in a vain attempt to evade either income taxes or federal jurisdiction in some other controversy. Still others seek to "prosecute" elected officials for alleged "crimes."
If true, this would mean that the federal government is not now violating the Constitution by exercising extra constitutional powers, since the government can hardly violate a law that has already been suspended. In truth, of course, the Constitution has not been suspended; it is waiting to be used.
The creation of "common law courts" by the fiat of certain individuals is usually based on the false suppositions that common law was abolished in the United States at some time during the 20th century and that anyone can create his own common law court under the Constitution. Yet none of the so-called common law courts which THE NEW AMERICAN has examined even pretends to cite a specific provision of the U.S. or state constitutions authorizing private citizens to create such a court.
These common law court "judges" are not elected by anyone other than the small circle of zealots who peddle their deviant common law court theories, and they are not appointed by elected officials. These "courts" therefore violate the fundamental principle of American government which requires the consent of the governed. Although not directly part of the common law, the consent of the governed has long been associated with the common law and can be traced back to the Magna Carta itself, which required the consent of the nobles for the king to impose an "aid or scutage [tax]." More often than not, these unelected "common law courts" pass illegitimate multi-million dollar "judgments" against elected officials and legitimate government entities. One such court notified Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton that her enforcement of "illegal" laws had resulted in a "judgment" against her of $3.7 billion in punitive damages. The Dallas Morning News received a $1 billion judgment against it from the "Common Law Court of Pleas"; the Montana Freemen offered a $1 million bounty on the local sheriff through its bogus common law court; and another "common law" court, deciding in favor of the "Republic of Texas," handed down a judgment of more than $93 trillion against the U.S. government and other entities.
These "common law courts" do not apply law, have no legitimacy as courts, and do not rule in any sort of common manner. They are nothing more than lynch mobs without a rope.
"[I]t is now resolved at law that the Republic of Texas is re-installed as its own free and independent Nation among nations, and is subject only to its treaties authorized by its Constitution." (John C. VanKirk, "President" of the Republic of Texas movement, January 5, 1996)
A few Texans claim to have initiated a constitutional convention and set up their own "provisional" national government, but there is no legitimacy to either their "government" or their rulings. It should be noted that the unelected Republic of Texas (RT) leaders have no appreciation of the fact that legitimate government requires the consent of the governed -- a concept embraced by the Founding Fathers of both the United States and Texas.
Leaders of the Republic of Texas plan to hold a Texas constitutional convention by January 7, 1998. They assert that Texas was never legally annexed by the United States, the intent and best efforts of Stephen Austin and Sam Houston notwithstanding. The crux of their argument is that Congress did not have the power to annex Texas into the union under the Constitution because Texas was a foreign nation at the time. In point of fact, not only does Congress have exclusive power to admit new states into the union under Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, but there is no limitation against annexation of foreign nations within that section.
The self-appointed, would-be rulers of Texas have been issuing ludicrous statements which are at odds with conservative and constitutional principles as well as with common sense. John VanKirk's successor as "President" of the Republic of Texas, Archie Lowe, remarked in an October 11, 1996 press release, "The conditions in Texas have reached the same point as Nazi Germany in 1939." This "Republic" has appealed to the freedom-threatening United Nations requesting UN recognition of Texas as an independent nation. RT has also proclaimed amnesty and full citizenship for all illegal aliens "domiciling on the soil of Texas for at least six months." And it has encouraged its "citizens" to form "common law courts" in every county in Texas.
Like the leaders of the RT provisional government, the officers of the common law courts are not elected by anybody (except the tiny group signing "citizenship" papers for RT) and are not appointed by any elected official. As already indicated, one such "common law court" evidenced the bizarre nature of such bodies by demanding for the RT a judgment of $93,492,827,008,096.00 in gold against the federal government, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Roman Catholic Church at the Vatican.
Richard McLaren, RT "Chief Ambassador and General Consul," has served time in the Midland County Detention Center on contempt of court charges relating to his unwillingness to cooperate with a legitimate court hearing related to his filing of bogus liens against the Stewart Title Guarantee Company. Stewart Title eventually won a $1.8 million judgment against McLaren plus a permanent injunction prohibiting McLaren from initiating future bogus liens against Stewart Title, according to the June 8, 1996 Dallas Morning News.
More dangerously, the "Republic" has circulated petitions in which signees "renounce" U.S. and Texas State citizenship and pledge to "support and defend" the Republic of Texas. Although the RT has not yet been involved in any violence, continued frustration resulting from its failure to attain its goals could cause its "Secretary of Defense" to initiate RT action going beyond the issuing of bogus liens through its authorized "common law courts." Militia organizations throughout Texas have been allying themselves with the RT for the last several months. And McLaren has threatened to use "bodily force" if federal marshals attempt to arrest him for failing to appear in court for charges related to the bogus liens filed by the RT. Moreover, federal officials could use the RT forms renouncing U.S. citizenship as evidence of sedition in later court prosecutions -- particularly if violence erupts. Conservatives would do well to ignore these self- appointed wanna-be rulers of the RT.
More....