I did a google search and found that the 16th Amendment gave them the right to collect income taxes.
so what is the argument? That the 16th amendment violates other amendments?
Here's the video Freedom to Fascism, if you're interested in seeing it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173
---------------
And here is the section of the interview that they're talking about in the paper:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...48605118&hl=en
Last edited by LibertyEagle; 06-26-2007 at 09:41 AM.
I'm not clear either. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that even though the16th Amendment allows them to pass laws to collect taxes, they never actually did pass the law.
There are multiple post on this site that have covered this.
Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" - Ron Paul is in it. This will explain most, or at least getting you studying the right information.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul Supporters!!!
In part, yes. But primary the issue is that 'income' has never been defined to mean wages. Think of it this way: when I work for someone, I am trading my labor for capital (dollars). There is no profit here because the mutual benefit is by definition an equilibrium. The tax was initially sold to the country as being one that would tax income on capital i.e. the appreciation of money in some investment.Originally Posted by BLS
There is also serious question about whether the 16 Amendment was properly ratified (some states passed different versions- something that is unconstitutional but Wilson's Secretary of State did not care).
Wilson's secretary of state DID care, but considered the notion that a misplaced semi-colon, missing plurals, or improperly capitalized words were irrelevant to the content of the amendments which the states approved, and he went ahead and declared the amendment ratified.
People here will say that the amendment was not ratified by the states, but that is frankly nonsense. The requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and thus it was declared an amendment.
I know I'm going to get shat on for saying this, but it must be said:
Income tax is legal, and Aaron Russo is (was?) a right-wing Michael Moore. A:F to F is a factually inaccurate hatchet-job "shockumentary" like any of Moore's.
As for income not being properly defined:
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.” 252 U.S. at 207).
Ultimately, the war must be waged on and through legislation. Legal battles will be pointless.
Last edited by Trevorjustco; 06-26-2007 at 10:01 AM.
I will fight against it regardless of legality because of the immorality of it.
A tax on wages means slavery. Except it's only 25... 30... 40... 50% slavery.
You may get no services in return and you will be imprisoned (or worse) if you do not comply.
There are certainly a lot of strong arguments that it is illegal as well. There is no debate that the tax IS AGAINST what the founders wanted (as is true of 95% of our gov. today).
No matter what don't let anyway tell you that the IRS has refuted all of the claims. Of course they would say that. They are criminal mercenary thugs.
Do your research and decide for yourself.
With a little bit of research and calling your state government, you'll find that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the states. A small little detail that didn't keep them from sticking it on the constitution as a legal amendment.
The 16th was not ratified and even if it is argued that it was, the Supreme Court ruled on multiple occasions that it did NOT add any new tax to the American People. A tax on labor is Unconstitutional and is considered slavery.
This is kinda my take on the situation as well. Who knows whether the income tax laws in this country are "legal" or "Constitutional," but one thing is for sure -- that a graduated income tax is a plank of the communist manifesto.
wow...thanks!
Just to save me some time, I copied this from a rant I had on another site, but I think it is pretty relevant to this issue.
"That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one." -- Benjamin Franklin
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the International Bankers was the Prime reason for the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson
The Federal Reserve and IRS are exactly the kind of institutions our Founding Fathers fought against for our freedoms. America lasted over a hundred years without the need, until our government was tricked into establishing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Woodrow Wilson, the acting President at the time even regretted his mistake:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson
Which, of course, the Federal Reserve Act lead to the 16th Amendment that is claimed to have allowed for the IRS to collect Income Tax. Which many argue was never properly ratified. See the court case from 2003 - United States District Court: Sullivan vs. USA.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/...
"I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the internal revenue, Income Tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." -- Federal Judge James C. Fox (page 23)
But the ratification doesn't even matter, since we don't have any courts with enough guts to rule on it ( also discussed by Judge James C. Fox in the previous case), because the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new tax. Check Supreme Court case Brushaber v. Union Pacific, this is what a 1980 Congressional Research Report stated about it:
"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... 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." -- 1980 Congressional Research Report
This is also backed up by Supreme Court case: Stanton v. Baltic, "...the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..."
I think it is pretty obvious where the law is. Which is exactly what Ed and Elaine Brown stated, "Show us the law and we will pay!". They even stated that they would be willing to pay any penalties and interest, if just shown the law.
They requested this in a letter to the IRS every month since 1995 or 1996 ( not positive on the year they started this ). After receiving no response from the IRS after 2 years, they decided not to pay their Income Tax until they were shown a law. When they were charged and taken to court, the judge would not allow them to have any witnesses, cross-exam the prosecution's witnesses, or even make a statement to the jury. How are you suppose to make a defense?!!
As for the people that question how the country will run if we have no Income Tax, how will things get paid for? It is simple, I will put this in very basic terms. Congress wants money for something, they have the Constitutional authority to create it, but instead they go to the Federal Reserve ( a private corporation ) and ask for X amount of money. The Federal Reserve creates this out of thin air, and agrees to give it to Congress with interest.
Now look at this, if I create the money, and you come to me and ask for $100.00 and I say sure, but you owe me $110.00 back. Then I create the $100.00 and never create the extra $10.00, how are you suppose to pay me back? You can't, you have to come back and borrow more, just to pay me back. See why our Founding Fathers saw this as slavery. Now, mind you, it is even more complex than that, but in simple terms, that is exactly what it equates to.
So when you pay your Income Tax to the IRS, all you are paying is that $10.00 interest on the loan. It is pure profit to a private corporation. Schools, roads, etc. are paid by other taxes and licenses ( i.e. Sales Tax, City Tax, State Tax, DMV, etc. ). You see, people that don't support the Income Tax, aren't against all taxes, just the Income Tax.
Well, I have ranted enough. There is more but, I'll save it for another time. Also, look into HJR-192.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul Supporters!!!
What you are citing is a passage in a USSC ruling that is continually taken out of context.
What the USSC said, were you to read the whole thing, is that the 16th created no new power to tax, but instead delimited the scope of income taxation.
That is: Congress already had the power to tax incomes, but only so long as it apportioned the amounts to the States in proportion to their populations. The 16th simply removed the requirement for apportionment.
Last edited by foofighter20x; 06-26-2007 at 10:17 AM.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free." -Göthe
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre
I am just saying, those people who are suggesting that the IRS is some bully who is trying to enforce laws that don't exist and "don't want anyone to know this dirty secret" are not based in reality, and will only come off as such should they attempt to say these things to people less tolerant of such views.
Income tax is legal in the here and now(Title 26 of the U.S. Code). Whether it was the founding fathers' intentions to allow income taxes or not is another thing, and really is irrelevant to the world of jurisprudence.
The 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states:
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp
Using the same argument they use for the 16th amendment, then it could also be argued the Bill of Rights was never ratified either...
Just sayin'
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free." -Göthe
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre
The truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days meant "profit" from business and corporations. NEVER did it include payment in exchange for labor. That definition has NEVER been legally changed.
Watch this video and get the true facts on income taxing. It is wonderful and very educational.
Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax 1hr 28 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...47335088938687
Trust me , you won't be sorry you watched it.
I was just looking for that video to post here. It may be as little dry but it is an excellent video that explains in detail why FIT are illegal and how they went about tricking the public to believe otherwise.
I highly recommend everybody watch this video as we will probably have to defend Ron's position in blogosphere. This will help some people to understand the issues.
I think Ron's argument, I've heard him make this argument for several other topics anyway, would revolve around the original intent. He would probably suggest looking at the history of it and seeing what the people who wrote it were intending it to do and stick to that.
That was weird. I tried the link you posted; it initially tried to load, and then said the video "might not be available, try to reload." Now it just says it’s unavailable.
*edit* Really strange, it's working now.
Democracy or Republic, Which is it?
My first contribution to the campaign
The Best Ron Paul Poster EVER!!!
No, the truth of the matter is that the legal definition of "income" from clear back in the colonial days included funds paid to employees that was DERIVED FROM profit.
If "profit" was legally equivalent to "income," then how come they are/were not used interchangeably?
That's wrong. The Supreme court ruled 8 separate times after the 16th was "passed" that it did not grant any new taxation powers. Furthermore, there would still have to be a Federal law requiring it which there is not. The amendment simply pretends to allow the Federal government the power to tax, but without the existence of an actual law creating the tax liability itself it still is not there.
Also, the 16h amendment is provable to not have been legally ratified, but this is a red herring since it doesn't grant the power anyway according to the Supreme Court.
Check out this film for the details: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
Last edited by Swmorgan77; 06-26-2007 at 11:39 AM.
If you would read the complete rulings (Brushaber and Stanton) you would realize that the Supreme Court's rulings that while the 16th amendment did not grant new powers to tax incomes, it merely permanently clarified that the income tax was an indirect tax. It was established before the passage of the 16th amendment that the federal government could tax income.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16
Your assertion that the 16th amendment does not say what it clearly says is utter lunacy.
Please explain what the heck you're talking about. 12 amendments were submitted for ratification and ten passed by 11/14 (78.6%), becoming the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
" * New Jersey, November 20, 1789; rejected article II
* Maryland, December 19, 1789; approved all
* North Carolina, December 22, 1789; approved all
* South Carolina, January 19, 1790; approved all
* New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; rejected article II
* Delaware, January 28, 1790; rejected article I
* New York, February 27, 1790; rejected article II
* Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; rejected article II
* Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; rejected article II
* Vermont, November 3, 1791; approved all
* Virginia, December 15, 1791; approved all"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...fication_dates
The Sixteenth Amendment, on the other hand, was not ratified by 75% of the states. It was announced as ratified even though the bar had not been met.
Anyway, the legal argument is pretty pointless. Income tax should be fought on practical and ethical grounds instead.
What you've provided from Wikipedia doesn't prove your case.
Ratification isn't a simple up or down vote in most cases. Typically, the state legislature submits a bill on the floor of either of its two houses (if they have two) in which the proposed amendment is copied.
The copies of the amendment don't always have the same capitalization, punctuation, or wording, and even if they do, that doesn't guarantee they don't get altered by the state lawmakers via statehouse amendments to the proposed amendment.
More here. (Since you like Wikipedia)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free." -Göthe
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre
I wasn't trying to "prove a case", I was discussing this with you. The wikipedia entry on the Sixteenth Amendment does not address Benson's most critical claims, llike the fact that it was reported as ratified in Kentucky and other states when the legislature had not actually ratified it.
To wit:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/feature...otratified.htmKnox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
Congress does not have the power to punish tax evaders only the States are to punish tax evaders. It only has the power to punish treason, counterfitting, and piracy on the high seas.
precisely!
Tax was intended to be levied on the gains of corporations, never on the wages of working stiffs. By returning to constitutionally intended taxation and eliminating all corporate tax-dodging of any kind we can achieve a fair and approximately 40% - 60% smaller federal government. I think there is easily 40% of uselessness and corruption we could cut right out of the federal budget, though the screaming and wails of agony from whatever affected special interests would be heard across the land from sea to shining sea!!!
Yeah, but that's a more generalized argument, and tougher to prosecute as it would invalidate quite a few federal crimes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us