federal income tax illegal/unconstitutional

[MCakes32]

hey all ive just recently watched america freedom to fascism, and i was just wondering if anyone knew any sources like more videos or articles that back it up in the assertion that the federal income tax is illegal, and of course if you would just like to explain the situation im all ears, but some sources or citing would be nice, im trying to tell people about this and as per usual i am crazy..... im not am i?

[ChristianAnarchist]

I started with the conclusion that income tax is un-constitutional in the 70's. Didn't file for 20 years. Saw several people go to jail (I knew Irwin Schiff) and finally came to the conclusion that it DOESN'T MATTER what the constitution says because you are dealing with the "federal mafia". They do not follow any "rules" (those are written for the little people like you and me). You are welcome to take whatever path you like and I, for one would cheer you on. If I were on any tax jury, I would vote "not guilty" no matter what the "evidence" is...

[squarepusher]

the people voted for it and willed it

[FrankRep]

hey all ive just recently watched america freedom to fascism, and i was just wondering if anyone knew any sources like more videos or articles that back it up in the assertion that the federal income tax is illegal, and of course if you would just like to explain the situation im all ears, but some sources or citing would be nice, im trying to tell people about this and as per usual i am crazy..... im not am i?

Wikipedia: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion)


The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Yeah, so the courts AND the congress have done things that are UN-constitutional... Does that make it right?

[freedom-maniac]

Yeah, so the courts AND the congress have done things that are UN-constitutional... Does that make it right?

No it doesn't, but what they did WAS constitutional.



The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


It was a legal, constitutional, amendment. Saying that income tax is unconstitutional is like saying that it's unconstitutional for the government to abolish slavery or allow women to vote.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Wrong. If you believe in "the constitution" then certain basic premises cannot be changed by amendment. You cannot, for instance, amend the constitution to remove the right to free speech (it comes from our Creator). You cannot change the taxing restrictions for the same reason. If all it takes is amendments to steal whatever power those thugs in washington want, we would all have been their slaves long ago...

[A Son of Liberty]

The constitution is just a piece of paper. It cannot and will not constrain any government any more than my visa statement can constrain me from spending money I don't have.

[freedom-maniac]

Wrong. If you believe in "the constitution" then certain basic premises cannot be changed by amendment. You cannot, for instance, amend the constitution to remove the right to free speech (it comes from our Creator). You cannot change the taxing restrictions for the same reason. If all it takes is amendments to steal whatever power those thugs in washington want, we would all have been their slaves long ago...

No, actually it wouldn't have, because the Founders intentionally made the amendment process a difficult one, which is why the thugs stopped using it (it took them decades of campaigning to get Prohibition, and then it was repealed in a matter of years) so they instead just started disobeying the Constitution.

Your argument logically necessitates that the government should have no power of taxation whatsoever, and although that may be an ethically defensible position, it is not a legally defensible one. Whether or not you LIKE the income tax, it is still obviously Constitutional.

[Danke]

Wikipedia: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion)


The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

This is incorrect. The income tax is an indirect tax. Apportionment rules for direct taxes still apply.

[FrankRep]

Wikipedia: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion)


The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

This is incorrect. The income tax is an indirect tax. Apportionment rules for direct taxes still apply.

I don't get what you are saying. Please clarify.


http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi


16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[VerlieJoy]

There is actually quite a bit of debate as to whether or not the 16th amendment was ever actually ratified. Check out Bill Benson's "The Law That Never Was."

[FrankRep]

There is actually quite a bit of debate as to whether or not the 16th amendment was ever actually ratified. Check out Bill Benson's "The Law That Never Was."
That doesn't matter, it's now in the Constitution. We must Repeal the 16th Amendment.

[VerlieJoy]

There is actually quite a bit of debate as to whether or not the 16th amendment was ever truly ratified. Check out Bill Benson's "The Law That Never Was."

[VerlieJoy]

Sorry, didn't mean to post this twice.

[VerlieJoy]

I completely agree. I just find it outrageous that we've been forced to live with this pseudo-law for so long. I can't help but wonder why and how the government has been allowed to get away with this. I know I need to read into some more.

[FrankRep]

I completely agree. I just find it outrageous that we've been forced to live with this pseudo-law for so long. I can't help but wonder why and how the government has been allowed to get away with this. I know I need to read into some more.

If you have time, this will explain the entire situation:


Overview of America Part II: Stopping the New World Order


John F. McManus, the president of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) exposes the well intrenched conspiracy that is far along in its plan to destroy national sovereignty and personal freedom on the way to establishing a "New World Order."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5wP6nFEbH8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5wP6nFEbH8

[lynnf]

If you have time, this will explain the entire situation:


Overview of America Part II: Stopping the New World Order


John F. McManus, the president of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) exposes the well intrenched conspiracy that is far along in its plan to destroy national sovereignty and personal freedom on the way to establishing a "New World Order."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5wP6nFEbH8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5wP6nFEbH8

check out Joe Banister, former IRS agent that saw what the IRS was doing, quit and started helping others, was charged by the IRS and he beat them in court!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=73545

Joseph Banister
A former IRS agent who believes citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes was acquitted today on charges he attempted to defraud the government.

Joseph Banister, a Certified Public Accountant in San Jose, Calif., had been telling his clients they don't need to file federal income tax returns because the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified.

A leading figure in the "tax honesty" movement, Banister was taken into custody Nov. 19 by IRS agents and released on $25,000 bond after pleading not guilty.

[Anti Federalist]

No, actually it wouldn't have, because the Founders intentionally made the amendment process a difficult one, which is why the thugs stopped using it (it took them decades of campaigning to get Prohibition, and then it was repealed in a matter of years) so they instead just started disobeying the Constitution.

Good point.

I've been asking this for years and have yet to get a satisfactory answer:

Why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban a manmade product, (distilled and fermented spirits) but the fedgov can just come along and ban a plant (marijuana)?

[jmag]

I don't get what you are saying. Please clarify.

The way I understand it is that the 16th amendment gave no new power to tax but just changed the nature of the 'income' so it could be taxed like an excise tax.

It's recategorizing something so government can do what otherwise would be unconstitutional. Like Obamacare mandate would be unconstitutional because of forced contracting with private parties, but the argument is to call it a tax.

Otherwise known as forked tongue.

[MelissaWV]

Good point.

I've been asking this for years and have yet to get a satisfactory answer:

Why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban a manmade product, (distilled and fermented spirits) but the fedgov can just come along and ban a plant (marijuana)?

Amen.

* * *

As to the Constitutionality of Amendments...


Wrong. If you believe in "the constitution" then certain basic premises cannot be changed by amendment. You cannot, for instance, amend the constitution to remove the right to free speech (it comes from our Creator). You cannot change the taxing restrictions for the same reason. If all it takes is amendments to steal whatever power those thugs in washington want, we would all have been their slaves long ago...

...is a pretty silly argument. You actually could amend the Constitution to remove the right to free speech; you'd just be overturning the First Amendment. It's not guaranteed in the Constitution proper, but in the Bill of Rights. The amendment process is fairly difficult, as people have said, which is why it's been recently all but abandoned. It would be next to impossible to get people to care and vote and ratify an amendment. Executive Orders and Supreme Court rulings have taken their place, much to the chagrin of anyone who knows anything about how the Government was originally designed.

[MCakes32]

ok, thanks for all the responses. but if it wasnt ratified correctly, than it is nothing more than the government just saying that it can do something right? and did it "slide" through the system without resistance because it didnt give them new power? it just made a current one stronger?

[Zippyjuan]

One of the arguments claiming that it was not properly ratified was to claim that voters were not voting on the same text. What they point out are not major differences but some spelling errors or differences in capitalization of words or using semi-colons instead of comas. Courts ruled that these were not significant enough differences. Another argument was that Ohio was not really a state in 1913 (Ohio was recognized as a state in 1803).

Amending the Constitution requires aproval of any amendments by three fourths of the states. In 1913, we had 48 so three fourths of that would be 36 states. By March 13, 1913, 42 of the states had ratified it- six more than the minimum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion Even if you were to toss out Ohio, there were enough others.

[MCakes32]

so they used a legal means "amendment" to change something that the constitution stated against right? and then the argument is made that this is how things have worked in regards to slavery and womens rights, that this is how the system is supposed to operate, but isnt there a fundamental difference when they are making amendments to expand the rights of the people (slavery, womens voting) and to limit the rights of the people, like the right to your income or porperty? arent they not supposed to encroach on the constitution in a way that limits the peoples rights and expands the power of government?

[nobody's_hero]

I don't understand how they ever came to the conclusion that an income tax was an 'indirect' tax.

It comes directly out of our paychecks, :(

I think there is enough support to repeal the 16th amendment among republican voters. There is NOT enough support among republican politicians.

Democrat support for repealing the income tax is near negligible.

[aGameOfThrones]

I don't understand how they ever came to the conclusion that an income tax was an 'indirect' tax.

It comes directly out of our paychecks, :(

I think there is enough support to repeal the 16th amendment among republican voters. There is NOT enough support among republican politicians.

Democrat support for repealing the income tax is near negligible.

But how will you pay for roads, schools and other government services?

Hahaha. I thought it was missing. The 16th gave no new power of taxation to congress. There are those who fall under the tax and those who don't, and then, there are those who volunteer to pay the tax.

Anyone know about the Victory tax?

[freedom-maniac]

One of the arguments claiming that it was not properly ratified was to claim that voters were not voting on the same text. What they point out are not major differences but some spelling errors or differences in capitalization of words or using semi-colons instead of comas. Courts ruled that these were not significant enough differences. Another argument was that Ohio was not really a state in 1913 (Ohio was recognized as a state in 1803).

Amending the Constitution requires aproval of any amendments by three fourths of the states. In 1913, we had 48 so three fourths of that would be 36 states. By March 13, 1913, 42 of the states had ratified it- six more than the minimum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion Even if you were to toss out Ohio, there were enough others.

+1

Thank you for taking a common-sense bat to the glass arguments of these conspiracy theorists.

[ChristianAnarchist]

One can take the mumbo-jumbo path of trying to figure out the legal end of whether the 16th created some new taxing powers (even the supreme court goons said it DID NOT), but really, you need to have a witch-doctor in a grass skirt waving a shrunken head in the air while dancing around a fire to "interpret" the "law"...

The MORALITY of it is: It's immoral to STEAL my money and spend it on things I don't want. Long ago, this was defined as theft and guess what? I STILL define it as theft.

Bottom line... The organized crime group called "government" will use their vast number of GUNS to STEAL my money...

[freedom-maniac]

One can take the mumbo-jumbo path of trying to figure out the legal end of whether the 16th created some new taxing powers (even the supreme court goons said it DID NOT), but really, you need to have a witch-doctor in a grass skirt waving a shrunken head in the air while dancing around a fire to "interpret" the "law"...

The MORALITY of it is: It's immoral to STEAL my money and spend it on things I don't want. Long ago, this was defined as theft and guess what? I STILL define it as theft.

Bottom line... The organized crime group called "government" will use their vast number of GUNS to STEAL my money...

You are correct that it's unethical. But this is a legal debate, not an ethical one.

[A Son of Liberty]

+1

Thank you for taking a common-sense bat to the glass arguments of these conspiracy theorists.

Sheeeww! :wipes forehead: Thank Garsh parliamentary procedure was respected in the process of enacting a "policy" legitimizing theft!

I know I feel better!

[PaulConventionWV]

No it doesn't, but what they did WAS constitutional.



It was a legal, constitutional, amendment. Saying that income tax is unconstitutional is like saying that it's unconstitutional for the government to abolish slavery or allow women to vote.

I have my doubts about the ratification process of the 16th amendment. There is lots of evidence and cases of people who challenged the ratification of the amendment that were not openly reported. It is clear, however, that this amendment should be repealed. It is abhorent that the federal government can tax income without representation.

[mport1]

I started with the conclusion that income tax is un-constitutional in the 70's. Didn't file for 20 years. Saw several people go to jail (I knew Irwin Schiff) and finally came to the conclusion that it DOESN'T MATTER what the constitution says because you are dealing with the "federal mafia". They do not follow any "rules" (those are written for the little people like you and me). You are welcome to take whatever path you like and I, for one would cheer you on. If I were on any tax jury, I would vote "not guilty" no matter what the "evidence" is...

Exactly. It doesn't matter what is illegal/unconstitutional. The government is a violent gang. They do not care about their own laws and will not follow them. They will and can do whatever they want.

[MelissaWV]

I have my doubts about the ratification process of the 16th amendment. There is lots of evidence and cases of people who challenged the ratification of the amendment that were not openly reported. It is clear, however, that this amendment should be repealed. It is abhorent that the federal government can tax income without representation.

I guess this is a good time to bring up that, while they cannot vote for President, Puerto Ricans do pay certain Federal taxes.

In that case it is a literal taxation without a say in who heads the organization doing it, though the island does have token "representation" in Congress.

[ChristianAnarchist]

You are correct that it's unethical. But this is a legal debate, not an ethical one.

Hardly unethical, it's IMMORAL. There is NO LEGAL argument that justifies immoral actions. You cannot "legalize" genocide (Hitler tried it), rape, murder or THEFT. If you pass a so called "law" (using what ever witch-doctor mumbo-jumbo you like) authorizing immoral acts, it's not legitimate.

[aGameOfThrones]

I guess this is a good time to bring up that, while they cannot vote for President, Puerto Ricans do pay certain Federal taxes.

In that case it is a literal taxation without a say in who heads the organization doing it, though the island does have token "representation" in Congress.

Indeed!

[Danke]

+1

Thank you for taking a common-sense bat to the glass arguments of these conspiracy theorists.

lol have you read Bill Benson's book?

[jbuttell]

+1

Thank you for taking a common-sense bat to the glass arguments of these conspiracy theorists.

Considering it apparently got the support of 36 out of 42 states, it doesn't sound like an amendment to the constitution is as difficult as some make it out to be. On what basis would any sane person accept to have taxes taken directly from their wages? Particularly at a time when so few services (relatively speaking) were offered by the federal government.

[Danke]

Executive Orders and Supreme Court rulings have taken their place, much to the chagrin of anyone who knows anything about how the Government was originally designed.

This is a common misperception of EOs and Pubic Policies. They only apply to those under the justification of the Executive Branch.

One needs to research the Supreme Court rulings (that have not been over turned) before FDR and his decreeds.

Most people do not understand "laws" that are applicable to the people of the sovereign States and those that believe they are US Citizens or Residents.

Now the question is it worth your time and effort to fight this in a corrupt court system?

[Danke]

I don't understand how they ever came to the conclusion that an income tax was an 'indirect' tax.

It comes directly out of our paychecks, :(

I think there is enough support to repeal the 16th amendment among republican voters. There is NOT enough support among republican politicians.

Democrat support for repealing the income tax is near negligible.

Your "employer" has a misunderstanding. Therefore the IRS can claim plausible deniability. Someone is claiming you have taxable income. So you need to refute that claim.

[PaulConventionWV]

Hardly unethical, it's IMMORAL. There is NO LEGAL argument that justifies immoral actions. You cannot "legalize" genocide (Hitler tried it), rape, murder or THEFT. If you pass a so called "law" (using what ever witch-doctor mumbo-jumbo you like) authorizing immoral acts, it's not legitimate.
Yeah, but then you get into who defines morality. That's why we have the Constitution. You can't teach people morality through legislation, and no one is going to agree on everything. Crying that something is 'immoral' is not going to hold up in a court of law, and acting like you have some higher authority that gives you precedence because of your moral high ground is not the way our Constitution works. It is already based on the morals the founding fathers believed came from the Creator. To assert otherwise is to advocate the "living document" doctrine of the constitution and send yourself off down a slippery slope.

[PaulConventionWV]

Zippyjuan, this is not about spelling errors. The problems with the amendment are much more broad than that. It's one thing to take a fact check on conspiracy theorists, and another thing entirely to dismiss any theory that would suggest some sort of conspiracy. Conspiracies happen all the time, they're nothing new to history. In fact, they're the norm.

Here's an overview of Bill Benson's book:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

[ChristianAnarchist]

Yeah, but then you get into who defines morality. That's why we have the Constitution. You can't teach people morality through legislation, and no one is going to agree on everything. Crying that something is 'immoral' is not going to hold up in a court of law, and acting like you have some higher authority that gives you precedence because of your moral high ground is not the way our Constitution works. It is already based on the morals the founding fathers believed came from the Creator.

Yup, you got it... The "morals" come from our Creator. When I see them (the gang of thugs) doing things immoral (like theft) I know they lack any authority to do it. You see "morals" trump the constitution (a bunch of words written on hemp by some less than perfect men). How do I know what "morals" are?? Because they are written upon the hearts of men. Men (neuter gender here gals) all over the world have these morals written in their hearts (rape, murder, theft = bad). Not so difficult to agree on.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yup, you got it... The "morals" come from our Creator. When I see them (the gang of thugs) doing things immoral (like theft) I know they lack any authority to do it. You see "morals" trump the constitution (a bunch of words written on hemp by some less than perfect men). How do I know what "morals" are?? Because they are written upon the hearts of men. Men (neuter gender here gals) all over the world have these morals written in their hearts (rape, murder, theft = bad). Not so difficult to agree on.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I would just like you to ask yourself, "who wrote these morals on the hearts of men?" Saying that they are just there doesn't answer anything. Where did they come from and why are they right? Many people can easily disagree, but as long as they are in the minority, their ideas of morals get trampled by the majority idea of morals. You can't say one set of morals is simply unanimous if it comes from nowhere. That doesn't answer the question, "why should anyone be forced to agree on this set of morals?"

Your idea that morals trump the Constitution lends itself to the "living document" theory. It leads to corruption and dictatorship every time.

[freedom-maniac]

Considering it apparently got the support of 36 out of 42 states, it doesn't sound like an amendment to the constitution is as difficult as some make it out to be. On what basis would any sane person accept to have taxes taken directly from their wages? Particularly at a time when so few services (relatively speaking) were offered by the federal government.

It was seen as an alternative to other forms of taxation. The original income tax plan was not intended to ever have the tax raise more than 5%. Some suggested drafts of the amendment included that prohibition. After it was ratified it actually allowed Woodrow Wilson and Congress to lower other taxes significantly. Although we may hate on Woodrow Wilson for WWI and the Fed, he DID lower taxes significantly on imported goods, and had several rounds of lowering tariffs during his presidency. The lowered tariffs allowed for a stronger economy and more free trade, and tariffs tend to be regressive taxes, unlike an income tax which can be flat/fair, or progressive. It was the income tax that allowed for this boost in free-trade, and the abolition of the protectionist regressive-tax tariffs.

[VerlieJoy]

If you have time, this will explain the entire situation:


Overview of America Part II: Stopping the New World Order


John F. McManus, the president of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) exposes the well intrenched conspiracy that is far along in its plan to destroy national sovereignty and personal freedom on the way to establishing a "New World Order."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5wP6nFEbH8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5wP6nFEbH8

Thank you for this. It was extremely enlightening.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I would just like you to ask yourself, "who wrote these morals on the hearts of men?" Saying that they are just there doesn't answer anything. Where did they come from and why are they right? Many people can easily disagree, but as long as they are in the minority, their ideas of morals get trampled by the majority idea of morals. You can't say one set of morals is simply unanimous if it comes from nowhere. That doesn't answer the question, "why should anyone be forced to agree on this set of morals?"

Your idea that morals trump the Constitution lends itself to the "living document" theory. It leads to corruption and dictatorship every time.

It's pretty basic and simple (simple is always better). No murder, rape, theft. It's a FACT that these are accepted almost universally worldwide. History and current studies have made this pretty clear. You may be able to cite a few examples throughout history (Human sacrifice for example) but these examples would be the exception, not the rule. If you check the background of what laughingly passes for "law" today, you will see that it originally was based on these three. As far as the "written on the hearts of men", this is phraseology that I chose to use. If you have better phraseology, feel free to share...