Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: For Tea Party Patriots: The 16th & 17th Amendments and the big, corrupt fed. gov.

  1. #1

    Default For Tea Party Patriots: The 16th & 17th Amendments and the big, corrupt fed. gov.

    Attention Tea Party patriots, and anybody who is interested. You don't have to agree with my constructive critique of the Tea Party movement, but please consider it.

    One issue that I have with my conservative, activist Tea Party family is the following. While the Constitution certainly reflects conservative political perspectives about taxes, the problem is that conservatives, including my family, evidently don't know enough constitutional basics to effectively argue their points. In other words, I see Tea Party people trying to defend their stance against high (actually illegal) federal taxes essentially from sentimental perspectives, instead of substantiating their points with specific constitutional amendments, articles, sections and clauses, along with official historical references about constitutional taxation. So I don’t shed any tears when I see Constitution-impaired Tea Party protestors being ignored by the likewise impaired liberal media.

    I believe that the Tea Party movement would be a lot more effective if Tea Party activists were empowered with the constitutional basics which deal with taxes, basics that even grade school children can be taught. So I wrote what follows to give Tea Party people my analysis of Constitution-related historical facts which will hopefully facilitate their mission. Armed with this information, I hope that their voices will be more effective in their fight, not only against illegal federal taxes, but also against unwanted federal interference in their lives that often come with taxes.

    Here's the basics. The unwanted federal taxes that we’re now plagued with is a consequence of the people forgetting the Founder’s division of federal and state government powers, in my opinion. This division of powers is evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

    • “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


    The Founders made this amendment to officially reserve the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. And with the greater power of the states in mind, note that Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the power of the feds to lay taxes.

    • "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)


    So how did the country get sidetracked from its constitutional basics as evidenced by today's illegal and burdensome federal taxes? Let's address this question by considering how constitutional firewalls that were undoubtedly intended to help prevent illegal federal taxes got bypassed.

    To begin with, the Founders had established the federal Senate to be the voice of the state governments in the federal government (Article I, Section 3, Clause 1). Giving the state governments their own voice is very important because, as we have already discussed, the Constitution actually gives the state governments more power to serve the people - and thus power to lay taxes - than it gives to the federal government. So the federal Senate can be regarded as a watchdog, guarding against not only federal government usurpation of state powers, but also protecting state taxes associated with those powers.

    But why didn’t outraged federal Senators speak up in the 1930s, for example, when constitutionally clueless FDR wrongly usurped state powers, including the associated power to lay unique taxes, in order to establish his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal spending programs? The truth of the matter is that FDR evidently wasn't the only constitutionally inept "leader" in DC by that time. But we need to review what was likely happening in the state legislatures before 1913, the year that the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified, in order to understand how pro-big federal government politicians had infiltrated DC by the 1930s.

    Prior to 1913, more than half of the USA's population was rural. And given the technological barriers to researching anything at that time, particularly for mostly rural Americans, people were probably not being taught constitutional basics like state sovereignty. Indeed, other than possibly being required to recite the states (48 at the time), what would inspire rural American schoolchildren to ask questions about state sovereignty?

    So as a consequence of prevalent word-of-mouth knowledge, if not gossip, about our basic constitutional freedoms, state sovereignty-apathetic voters were likely electing state lawmakers who were as unconcerned about state powers as the voters were. And if this was the case, then state legislatures were probably full of state sovereignty-impaired lawmakers before 1913. So when the power-hungry federal Congress proposed the 16th and 17th amendments in 1909 and 1912 respectively, the ratification of these ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty amendments was an accident just waiting to happen.

    Lets examine the 17th A. first, the amendment that gives voters the power to elect federal senators. Although the 17th A. is said to have been proposed as a "remedy" to help reduce special-interest corruption in the federal Senate, state lawmakers probably saw this proposed amendment differently. They might have reasoned that, although Congress wanted to make it easier for itself to lay taxes as evidenced by the earlier proposed 16th A., Congress now seemed willing to “compensate” the people for wider powers to lay taxes as evidenced by its proposed additional amendment that would give voters the power to elect federal senators directly. After all, that's ”taxation with representation” and what's wrong with that? (Note that the deceptive taxation with representation argument is what I got from my Tea Party activist brother when I slyly questioned his knowledge about the 16th and 17th Amendments. So you helped to inspire this essay, bro.)

    So when the Frankenstein Congress proposed the 17th A., essentially bait for the states to also ratify the proposed 16th A., state sovereignty-ignorant lawmakers not surprisingly failed to make the following connection concerning the proposed 17th Amendment. They overlooked that the proposed amendment posed a serious threat to the Founder's purpose for the federal Senate, the voice of the constitutionally powerful state governments in the constitutionally humbled federal government. If you will recall, the federal Senate was one of the Founder's firewalls against federal government usurpation of state powers and associated taxes.

    Getting back to my previous question as to why the federal Senate gave the green light to FDR's state sovereignty-usurping New Deal programs when it should have protected state sovereignty by blocking these programs, consider the following. When the state legislatures unthinkingly ratified the 17th A., voters not surprisingly began using their new power to elect federal senators. The problem is that they seemingly used this power to repeat their previous mistake with the state governments. In other words, they evidently began filling federal Senate seats with people who were just as indifferent to state sovereignty as the lawmakers that they had been filling state legislature seats with prior to 1913. So as a consequence of the 17th A., the federal Senate’s days as the watchdog protector of state sovereignty, including protecting state powers to lay unique taxes, were numbered.

    So not only has the 16th A. ultimately made it easier for the Constitution-ignoring feds to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes, the 17th A. completes the cycle of illegal federal taxation and spending in the following way. The 17th A. practically insures that federal senate seats remain filled with state-power apathetic lawmakers who all too easily vote yes on bills which use 16th A.-facilitated illegal federal taxes to fund likewise constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs; the stimulus package, proposed healthcare, etc.

    In fact, since the 1930s the federal Senate has arguably been nothing more than an extension of the House of Representatives where promoting legislation which condones constitutionally unauthorized federal taxation and spending is concerned. In other words, we effectively have a one-house federal Congress in this aspect, something definitely not in the Founder’s constitutional blueprint of the federal government.

    The bottom line is that the 16th and 17th Amendments have turned out to be a Trojan horse from the corrupt feds to the naive states that has ultimately helped to make it more difficult for the people and their state lawmakers to challenge federal taxation and spending based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.

    Again, such spending was evidenced by FDR’s big-shot spender policies in the 1930s. And federal spending is now spinning insanely out of control under the misguided Obama Administration, Obama unthinkingly walking in FDR's misguided socialist footsteps.

    Ignorance begs tyranny. Tyranny then fosters more ignorance.

    What a mess! :^(

    So while it is commendable that Tea Party patriots are at least trying to keep the spirit of the Boston Tea Party alive by protesting high taxes, high taxes actually just the tip of the iceberg of rampant federal government corruption, please consider this. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that if Tea Party activists were informed of the above theory then they may be empowered to put more vitality into their Tea Party movement by supporting the only real option that we have concerning the 16th and 17th Amendments, in my opinion.

    One remedy to this waking nightmare, the corrupt federal government ‘s ongoing destruction of state sovereignty and robbing of the taxpayers, is this. The voters need to be brought up to speed with the federal government's illegal usurping of state powers and elect pro-state power leaders to the federal and state governments in 2010 who will do the following. Pro-state power leaders need to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. Again, these ill-conceived amendments are the source of power for the corrupt Democratic Party which has been ruining the country since the days of FDR, these deceptive amendments making it too easy for Constitution-ignoring Democrats to lay and spend tax dollars based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.

    And once the 16th A. has been repealed and the federal income tax eliminated, the state governments can finance the feds with higher state taxes. The reason for this is as follows. The states can use their greater constitutional powers to serve the people to fight a downhill battle with the feds, eliminating constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes, keeping as many tax dollars in a given state as possible. (Did you hear that California?)

    And when state government "leaders" show their voters that they are more interested in protecting the welfare of the federal government than that of their own state, then they can look for another job.

    As a side note to the folly of the 16th and 17th Amendments, I’ll mention another constitutional firewall against high taxes that thieves in lawmaker’s clothing are currently trying to bypass. More specifically, let’s consider what these flakey amendments have in common with today’s misguided movement to "modernize" the Electoral College. The common ground is that the state sovereignty-clueless Democrats leading the Electoral College movement are evidently wanting even more backdoor access to the “all powerful” Oval Office, their side-door entrance to the "self-help" US Treasury, then they've already got with the 16th and 17th amendments.

    In fact, noting that the five states (including Illinois) currently leading the Electoral College reform movement are blue states, the thieves running these states probably couldn’t care less that much of the money in the US Treasury that they're constantly trying to steal in the name of funding for their states were taxes illegally laid on their voters by their Constitution-ignoring Democratic colleagues in the federal government. So consider that while blue state lawmakers are claiming to want to “reform” the Electoral College, what they really want, in my opinion, is to have "drive-thru" access to the US Treasury, compliments of "their" Oval Office.

    Again, as a consequence of their inexcusable ignorance of state sovereignty (ignorance of the law is no excuse), state lawmakers evidently do not understand that they have always been able to use their greater state powers to serve the people to stop the feds from stealing constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes from the taxpayers, keeping these tax dollars in the respective states; we’re suffering the consequences of dealing with idiot thieves disguised as lawmakers. California wouldn’t be going down the tubes, in my opinion, if California state thieves...umm...lawmakers understood state sovereignty.

    As a final side note to constitutionally unauthorized federal taxation, I support fair and flat tax plans for the following reason. Such tax initiatives are at least a step in the right direction, in my opinion. However, the problem is, that until illegal federal taxes are done away with, what’s the point in paying illegal federal taxes, flat or fair?

    Getting back to the Tea Party movement, the bottom line is that the phony powers of the Oval Office and Congress need to be destroyed. These are powers which have been politically delegated to the feds by Constitution-ignoring special interest groups since before 1913, as opposed to the limited powers actually delegated to the feds by the Constitution. Again, repealing the ill-conceived 16th and 17th Amendments would be a giant step in this direction, in my opinion. Did you hear that Tea Party patriots?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    Attention Tea Party patriots, and anybody who is interested. You don't have to agree with my constructive critique of the Tea Party movement, but please consider it.

    One issue that I have with my conservative, activist Tea Party family is the following. While the Constitution certainly reflects conservative political perspectives about taxes, the problem is that conservatives, including my family, evidently don't know enough constitutional basics to effectively argue their points. In other words, I see Tea Party people trying to defend their stance against high (actually illegal) federal taxes essentially from sentimental perspectives, instead of substantiating their points with specific constitutional amendments, articles, sections and clauses, along with official historical references about constitutional taxation. So I don’t shed any tears when I see Constitution-impaired Tea Party protestors being ignored by the likewise impaired liberal media.

    I believe that the Tea Party movement would be a lot more effective if Tea Party activists were empowered with the constitutional basics which deal with taxes, basics that even grade school children can be taught. So I wrote what follows to give Tea Party people my analysis of Constitution-related historical facts which will hopefully facilitate their mission. Armed with this information, I hope that their voices will be more effective in their fight, not only against illegal federal taxes, but also against unwanted federal interference in their lives that often come with taxes.

    Here's the basics. The unwanted federal taxes that we’re now plagued with is a consequence of the people forgetting the Founder’s division of federal and state government powers, in my opinion. This division of powers is evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

    • “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


    The Founders made this amendment to officially reserve the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. And with the greater power of the states in mind, note that Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the power of the feds to lay taxes.

    • "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)


    So how did the country get sidetracked from its constitutional basics as evidenced by today's illegal and burdensome federal taxes? Let's address this question by considering how constitutional firewalls that were undoubtedly intended to help prevent illegal federal taxes got bypassed.

    To begin with, the Founders had established the federal Senate to be the voice of the state governments in the federal government (Article I, Section 3, Clause 1). Giving the state governments their own voice is very important because, as we have already discussed, the Constitution actually gives the state governments more power to serve the people - and thus power to lay taxes - than it gives to the federal government. So the federal Senate can be regarded as a watchdog, guarding against not only federal government usurpation of state powers, but also protecting state taxes associated with those powers.

    But why didn’t outraged federal Senators speak up in the 1930s, for example, when constitutionally clueless FDR wrongly usurped state powers, including the associated power to lay unique taxes, in order to establish his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal spending programs? The truth of the matter is that FDR evidently wasn't the only constitutionally inept "leader" in DC by that time. But we need to review what was likely happening in the state legislatures before 1913, the year that the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified, in order to understand how pro-big federal government politicians had infiltrated DC by the 1930s.

    Prior to 1913, more than half of the USA's population was rural. And given the technological barriers to researching anything at that time, particularly for mostly rural Americans, people were probably not being taught constitutional basics like state sovereignty. Indeed, other than possibly being required to recite the states (48 at the time), what would inspire rural American schoolchildren to ask questions about state sovereignty?

    So as a consequence of prevalent word-of-mouth knowledge, if not gossip, about our basic constitutional freedoms, state sovereignty-apathetic voters were likely electing state lawmakers who were as unconcerned about state powers as the voters were. And if this was the case, then state legislatures were probably full of state sovereignty-impaired lawmakers before 1913. So when the power-hungry federal Congress proposed the 16th and 17th amendments in 1909 and 1912 respectively, the ratification of these ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty amendments was an accident just waiting to happen.

    Lets examine the 17th A. first, the amendment that gives voters the power to elect federal senators. Although the 17th A. is said to have been proposed as a "remedy" to help reduce special-interest corruption in the federal Senate, state lawmakers probably saw this proposed amendment differently. They might have reasoned that, although Congress wanted to make it easier for itself to lay taxes as evidenced by the earlier proposed 16th A., Congress now seemed willing to “compensate” the people for wider powers to lay taxes as evidenced by its proposed additional amendment that would give voters the power to elect federal senators directly. After all, that's ”taxation with representation” and what's wrong with that? (Note that the deceptive taxation with representation argument is what I got from my Tea Party activist brother when I slyly questioned his knowledge about the 16th and 17th Amendments. So you helped to inspire this essay, bro.)

    So when the Frankenstein Congress proposed the 17th A., essentially bait for the states to also ratify the proposed 16th A., state sovereignty-ignorant lawmakers not surprisingly failed to make the following connection concerning the proposed 17th Amendment. They overlooked that the proposed amendment posed a serious threat to the Founder's purpose for the federal Senate, the voice of the constitutionally powerful state governments in the constitutionally humbled federal government. If you will recall, the federal Senate was one of the Founder's firewalls against federal government usurpation of state powers and associated taxes.

    Getting back to my previous question as to why the federal Senate gave the green light to FDR's state sovereignty-usurping New Deal programs when it should have protected state sovereignty by blocking these programs, consider the following. When the state legislatures unthinkingly ratified the 17th A., voters not surprisingly began using their new power to elect federal senators. The problem is that they seemingly used this power to repeat their previous mistake with the state governments. In other words, they evidently began filling federal Senate seats with people who were just as indifferent to state sovereignty as the lawmakers that they had been filling state legislature seats with prior to 1913. So as a consequence of the 17th A., the federal Senate’s days as the watchdog protector of state sovereignty, including protecting state powers to lay unique taxes, were numbered.

    So not only has the 16th A. ultimately made it easier for the Constitution-ignoring feds to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes, the 17th A. completes the cycle of illegal federal taxation and spending in the following way. The 17th A. practically insures that federal senate seats remain filled with state-power apathetic lawmakers who all too easily vote yes on bills which use 16th A.-facilitated illegal federal taxes to fund likewise constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs; the stimulus package, proposed healthcare, etc.

    In fact, since the 1930s the federal Senate has arguably been nothing more than an extension of the House of Representatives where promoting legislation which condones constitutionally unauthorized federal taxation and spending is concerned. In other words, we effectively have a one-house federal Congress in this aspect, something definitely not in the Founder’s constitutional blueprint of the federal government.

    The bottom line is that the 16th and 17th Amendments have turned out to be a Trojan horse from the corrupt feds to the naive states that has ultimately helped to make it more difficult for the people and their state lawmakers to challenge federal taxation and spending based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.

    Again, such spending was evidenced by FDR’s big-shot spender policies in the 1930s. And federal spending is now spinning insanely out of control under the misguided Obama Administration, Obama unthinkingly walking in FDR's misguided socialist footsteps.

    Ignorance begs tyranny. Tyranny then fosters more ignorance.

    What a mess! :^(

    So while it is commendable that Tea Party patriots are at least trying to keep the spirit of the Boston Tea Party alive by protesting high taxes, high taxes actually just the tip of the iceberg of rampant federal government corruption, please consider this. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that if Tea Party activists were informed of the above theory then they may be empowered to put more vitality into their Tea Party movement by supporting the only real option that we have concerning the 16th and 17th Amendments, in my opinion.

    One remedy to this waking nightmare, the corrupt federal government ‘s ongoing destruction of state sovereignty and robbing of the taxpayers, is this. The voters need to be brought up to speed with the federal government's illegal usurping of state powers and elect pro-state power leaders to the federal and state governments in 2010 who will do the following. Pro-state power leaders need to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. Again, these ill-conceived amendments are the source of power for the corrupt Democratic Party which has been ruining the country since the days of FDR, these deceptive amendments making it too easy for Constitution-ignoring Democrats to lay and spend tax dollars based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.

    And once the 16th A. has been repealed and the federal income tax eliminated, the state governments can finance the feds with higher state taxes. The reason for this is as follows. The states can use their greater constitutional powers to serve the people to fight a downhill battle with the feds, eliminating constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes, keeping as many tax dollars in a given state as possible. (Did you hear that California?)

    And when state government "leaders" show their voters that they are more interested in protecting the welfare of the federal government than that of their own state, then they can look for another job.

    As a side note to the folly of the 16th and 17th Amendments, I’ll mention another constitutional firewall against high taxes that thieves in lawmaker’s clothing are currently trying to bypass. More specifically, let’s consider what these flakey amendments have in common with today’s misguided movement to "modernize" the Electoral College. The common ground is that the state sovereignty-clueless Democrats leading the Electoral College movement are evidently wanting even more backdoor access to the “all powerful” Oval Office, their side-door entrance to the "self-help" US Treasury, then they've already got with the 16th and 17th amendments.

    In fact, noting that the five states (including Illinois) currently leading the Electoral College reform movement are blue states, the thieves running these states probably couldn’t care less that much of the money in the US Treasury that they're constantly trying to steal in the name of funding for their states were taxes illegally laid on their voters by their Constitution-ignoring Democratic colleagues in the federal government. So consider that while blue state lawmakers are claiming to want to “reform” the Electoral College, what they really want, in my opinion, is to have "drive-thru" access to the US Treasury, compliments of "their" Oval Office.

    Again, as a consequence of their inexcusable ignorance of state sovereignty (ignorance of the law is no excuse), state lawmakers evidently do not understand that they have always been able to use their greater state powers to serve the people to stop the feds from stealing constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes from the taxpayers, keeping these tax dollars in the respective states; we’re suffering the consequences of dealing with idiot thieves disguised as lawmakers. California wouldn’t be going down the tubes, in my opinion, if California state thieves...umm...lawmakers understood state sovereignty.

    As a final side note to constitutionally unauthorized federal taxation, I support fair and flat tax plans for the following reason. Such tax initiatives are at least a step in the right direction, in my opinion. However, the problem is, that until illegal federal taxes are done away with, what’s the point in paying illegal federal taxes, flat or fair?

    Getting back to the Tea Party movement, the bottom line is that the phony powers of the Oval Office and Congress need to be destroyed. These are powers which have been politically delegated to the feds by Constitution-ignoring special interest groups since before 1913, as opposed to the limited powers actually delegated to the feds by the Constitution. Again, repealing the ill-conceived 16th and 17th Amendments would be a giant step in this direction, in my opinion. Did you hear that Tea Party patriots?
    Kind of funny you are criticizing Tea Party participants about their "ignorance" and you have just misstated the history behind the 16A and the income tax. It is constitutional, but unjustly enforced.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  4. #3

    Default

    Were Our Grandparents Complete Morons?



    SUPPOSE THAT YOU WERE A MEMBER OF A STATE LEGISLATURE which had been presented with a proposed Constitutional amendment of great significance. This proposed amendment would undo one of the most fundamental elements of the 120-year-old Constitution-- the existing limitation on federal authority to seize revenue from the citizenry at its pleasure.



    Authority of this sort had been entirely denied to the federal government under the Articles of Confederation. During the reforming of the Articles which resulted in our current Constitution only an extremely restricted relaxation of this total denial had been adopted, and with such reluctance, and such recognition of the significance of the issue, that the Framers duplicated the restrictive clause imposed on the exercise of this limited authority-- making it the only prohibition incorporated into the Constitution twice.



    The particular and explicit effect of this draconian amendment would be to authorize the federal government to seize an undefined (and therefore unlimited) portion of any payment made to anybody-- including you, other than the insignificant portion of your overall earnings being paid by the state government (one government can't impose a tax on the activities of another). This power would threaten the receipts of all of your constituents, as well.



    EVEN WHILE THIS DRAMATIC TRANSFORMATION WAS BEING PROPOSED, Congress already had an unlimited ability to raise revenue through the imposition of apportioned direct taxes. This sort of tax, although deliberately encumbered with a degree of political accountability inconvenient to federal politicians, had long-since proven itself both capable of raising enormous amounts of revenue and of being selective in its application to the various economic strata through the choices of objects of the tax and the provision of exemptions. In other words, apportioned direct taxes were fully capable of being laid exclusively on "the rich", if political considerations prompted such a preference.



    On the other hand, the proposed amendment by which the existing Constitutional structure is meant to be undone contains no language limiting its application to the rich, or limiting it in any fashion whatever. The amendment offers no benefit or increased authority to the state government of which you were a part-- indeed, your state government is already subject to no limit on its ability to impose taxes, other than being unable to tax federal government activities taking place within its borders (something this amendment doesn't purport to change).



    Furthermore, by the time this extraordinary amendment is presented to you, your colleagues and your constituents, the long-standing existing structure has already allowed America to become the most prosperous country on the planet.



    SO,

    *

    This proposed amendment offers no benefit to you personally, your state or your constituents. Quite the contrary, in fact-- it would convey a massive new power to another political entity which is, however congenially, in competition with you and your state for influence and resources nonetheless.

    *

    The amendment would hang a new, unpredictable and inherently unlimited threat over the control you and every single one of your constituents currently enjoy over your own wealth and well-being, and have always jealously guarded.

    *

    There is no demonstrable need for this fundamental and self-evidently dangerous transfer of power from you and your constituents to the federal government. Instead, the status quo is performing phenomenally well.

    *

    The Founders, still revered and respected by an American population equipped with a high-grade 98% literacy rate*, had broadly warned (and taken pains to provide) against any such transfer.

    What would you do, if this were really the choice you faced? Ratify? You, your colleagues and your constituents would have to be morons to do so. And yet, our grandparents DID ratify the Sixteenth Amendment (albeit, sloppily).



    So, were they really all morons? Those who want you to believe that the Sixteenth Amendment accomplished the dire and dramatic transformation I've described here expect you to buy into that unlikely proposition (in lieu of suspecting that they themselves completely misunderstand-- or are lying about-- the amendment).



    They also want you to overlook the repeated and explicit words of the United States Supreme Court and myriad other authorities to the contrary:

    “We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”

    ...

    “[Taxation of "income" is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it” (That is, if the "income" tax ever comes to be administered as something other than an excise, or on something unsuited to an excise, the rule of apportionment must be applied.)

    United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)



    "The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."

    United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)



    “The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”

    United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)



    The Revised Statutes of the United States and the Statutes at Large of the United States are the sources of the law codified. The Revised Statutes cover the period ended December 1, 1873. The Statutes at Large codified cover the period following December 1, 1873, and are published in the 35 volumes numbered 18 to 52, inclusive. The separate enactments carried into the internal revenue title, wholly or in part, from the Statutes at Large are 143 in number, exclusive of 93 statutes involving express amendment, reenactment, or repeal. The 277 Revised Statutes sections codified were derived from 21 basic statutes. The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2, 1939, therefore, has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16, 1938."

    Preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code



    "The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."

    Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979)



    "[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax."

    F. Morse Hubbard, legislative draftsman for the United States Treasury Department, testifying before Congress on March 27, 1943



    "The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916)."

    United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)

    Of course, our grandparents WEREN'T all morons, because the Sixteenth Amendment WASN'T a transformational event at all, as they understood full well.



    Instead, the Sixteenth Amendment accomplished nothing more dramatic than closing a minor loophole "discovered" by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust which prevented the application of the already 51-year-old "income" tax to dividends otherwise qualifying as taxable, due to their being derived from personally-owned stock. To learn the details of this ruling and the narrow effect of the amendment, read this file (or CtC for the truly comprehensive study of the subject).



    Comments regarding arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified-- an issue completely irrelevant to the application of the "income" tax to most people in any event-- will be found below the following footnote:



    *As recently as 1920, fewer than a third of American children were subjected to mis-education in government schools for more than a few years. Unfortunately, this didn't last. Compulsory attendance requirements, and tax extractions causing unsuspecting parents to favor the government schools they were being made to pay for whether they used them or not, steadily increased over the years. The combination caused a corresponding increase in both the portion of American children in those schools and the average term of attendance. Consequently, by 1952, only 81% of the adult American population could read at a nominal fourth-grade level; by 1973, the percentage had dropped to 73% (according to U.S. Army inductee testing data). It has only gotten worse since then. The Educational Testing Service reports in its analysis of its 1993 National Adult Literacy Survey that:

    1. Forty-two million Americans over the age of sixteen can’t read. Some of this group can write their names on Social Security cards and fill in height, weight, and birth spaces on application forms.


    2.

    Fifty million can recognize printed words on a fourth- and fifth-grade level. They cannot write simple messages or letters.

    3.

    Fifty-five to sixty million are limited to sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade reading. A majority of this group could not figure out the price per ounce of peanut butter in a 20-ounce jar costing $1.99 when told they could round the answer off to a whole number.

    4.

    Thirty million have ninth- and tenth-grade reading proficiency. This group (and all preceding) cannot understand a simplified written explanation of the procedures used by attorneys and judges in selecting juries.

    5.

    About 3.5 percent of the 26,000-member sample demonstrated literacy skills adequate to do traditional college study, a level 30 percent of all U.S. high school students reached in 1940, and which 30 percent of secondary students in other developed countries can reach today. This last fact alone should warn you how misleading comparisons drawn from international student competitions really are, since the samples each country sends are small elite ones, unrepresentative of the entire student population. But behind the bogus superiority a real one is concealed.

    6.

    Ninety-six and a half percent of the American population is mediocre to illiterate where deciphering print is concerned. This is no commentary on their intelligence, but without ability to take in primary information from print and to interpret it they are at the mercy of commentators who tell them what things mean. A working definition of immaturity might include an excessive need for other people to interpret information for us.

    (Army statistics and summary of the NALS analysis as presented by John Taylor Gatto in 'The Underground History of American Education')



    By the way, don't let me hear anything about these schools just needing more money in order to do a better job! As is noted in 'A Modest Proposal For A New Industrial Policy' in 'Upholding the Law And Other Observations', even while the level of educational output was plummeting, expenditures in government schools were skyrocketing. Measured in constant 1992 dollars, per pupil spending in government schools leapt from $867 in 1930 to a whopping $6,043 by 1993!



    ***



    Regarding the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, another exercise is worthwhile.



    Again, suppose that you were a member of a state legislature which had been presented with a proposed Constitutional amendment of great significance. This proposed amendment would undo one of the most fundamental elements of the 120-year-old Constitution-- the existing limitation on federal authority to seize revenue from the citizenry at its pleasure.



    Authority of this sort had been a entirely denied to the federal government under the Articles of Confederation. During the reforming of the Articles which resulted in our current Constitution only an extremely restricted relaxation of this total denial had been adopted, and with such reluctance, and such recognition of the significance of the issue, that the Framers duplicated the restrictive clause imposed on the exercise of this limited authority-- making it the only prohibition incorporated into the Constitution twice.



    NOW SUPPOSE FURTHER that you and your colleagues rejected this amendment. You recorded your rejection, and transmitted the same to Washington in the prescribed manner. Or, you never voted on the matter at all, or voted for a measure with deliberately different language or punctuation and a consequent different meaning.



    However, astonishingly, in due course the United States Secretary of State announced the adoption of the amendment, and your state is listed as a ratifying party! What would you do, if both of these suppositions were true?



    Wouldn't you and your colleagues raise a hue and cry, make a big fuss, and have your federal delegation do the same? Wouldn't you immediately launch a lawsuit, which would either resolve the matter in your favor (thus thwarting the amendment) or go to the Supreme Court like crap through a goose, resulting in a ruling one way or the other which would since be taught to every law school student in the country and be prominent in the public view during each and every one of the subsequent eleven amendment ratifications up to the present, the latest of which took place a mere 15 years ago?



    Or would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh, well. Not a big deal, really..."



    How about your constituents, whose own view of the matter was, to a greater or lesser degree, reflected in your rejection of the amendment? Would they, too, just yawn and "move on"?



    In light of the fact that there WAS no hue and cry and immediate flurry of lawsuits, anyone who seriously suggests that both of these suppositions are true is as much as declaring our grandparents to have been complete morons-- utterly incapable of looking after themselves and their own interests-- even WITHOUT regard to what the Sixteenth Amendment is really all about. Nonetheless, this is precisely what those fixated on the proposition that the Sixteenth Amendment was never actually ratified suggest. Don't let this well-intentioned, but plainly misdirected obsession steal any oxygen from the truth about the tax.

    http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...tification.htm
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Kind of funny you are criticizing Tea Party participants about their "ignorance" and you have just misstated the history behind the 16A and the income tax. It is constitutional, but unjustly enforced.
    Yes, the 16th A. is constitutional.

    But it remains that the problem with the 16th A., as I reflected in the essay, is that it makes it too easy for the corrupt federal government to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes, particularly when neither citizens or state lawmakers are up to speed with state sovereignty.

    And why have you seemingly ignored problems with the problems that I mentioned concerning the 17th Amendment?
    Last edited by 10thAmendment; 07-14-2009 at 07:49 PM.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Were Our Grandparents Complete Morons?
    As I reflected in the essay, our grandparents where likely uninformed about state sovereignty, first when they were electing state lawmakers, then when they were electing federal senators.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    But it remains that the problem with the 16th A.,... is that it makes it too easy for the corrupt federal government to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes...
    Can you rewrite that? "lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes"
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    As I reflected in the essay, our grandparents where likely uninformed about state sovereignty, first when they were electing state lawmakers, then when they were electing federal senators.
    You need to read up more on the history of that amendment too.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  9. #8

    Default

    You keep saying it is not constitutional, here is a few examples form you OP.




    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    not only against illegal federal taxes, but also against unwanted federal interference in their lives that often come with taxes.


    So how did the country get sidetracked from its constitutional basics as evidenced by today's illegal and burdensome federal taxes? Let's address this question by considering how constitutional firewalls that were undoubtedly intended to help prevent illegal federal taxes got bypassed.






    So not only has the 16th A. ultimately made it easier for the Constitution-ignoring feds to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes...



    And once the 16th A. has been repealed and the federal income tax eliminated...
    Repealing the 16A does not eliminate the income tax.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    You keep saying it is not constitutional, here is a few examples form you OP.
    You must be a liberal troll. Regardless that you claim that I said the 16th A. is unconstitutional, you are ignoring post #4 in this thead.

    • Yes, the 16th A. is constitutional.



    The fact that the 16th A. doesn't address previous tax statutes in the Constitution hints that there was possibly some confusion, perhaps widespread, about what the Constitution says about taxes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Repealing the 16A does not eliminate the income tax.
    I agree with you. But repealing the 16th A would provide momentum for eliminating the income tax.
    Last edited by 10thAmendment; 07-15-2009 at 01:52 PM.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Can you rewrite that? "lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes"
    As I mentioned in the OP, Chief Justice Marshall put it the following way.

    • "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    You must be a liberal troll.



    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    Regardless that you claim that I said the 16th A. is unconstitutional...
    Can't you even read what you wrote, I even quoted you. Illegal tax=unconstitutional.


    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    you are ignoring post #4 in this thead.
    No, just showing your contradictions AFTER I pointed out to you it is a constitutional tax.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    As I mentioned in the OP, Chief Justice Marshall put it the following way.

    • "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)
    And they still don't.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    And they still don't.
    Let's quit wasting each other's time Danke.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thAmendment View Post
    Let's quit wasting each other's time Danke.
    Give an example to my above point, but anything to do with the income tax does seem be a waste of time with you.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •