16th Amendment

[Anarchist420]

Read this: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

I don't see how it could've been if there were that many and such serious defects in its ratification.

Is there any explanation as to how Benson could be wrong?

Also, the 16th Amendment, as worded, doesn't actually require the income tax. It just authorizes it.

 

[Infohawk]

This is only a couple notches above a tinfoil hat theory you'd find on a UFO webpage. There's a lot you have to take his word for. He talks about a year-long study but given his other misunderstandings I have no faith he was actually diligent in his study or scholarly enough to do it properly. Let's look at one complaint he has: "Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution." Look at Art. V of the US Constitution. Signatures of governors are not necessary. Also, his quotes from the Brushaber case simply do not exist. These are just a couple examples that show his analysis is weak and that he is not credible.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Lots of things are wrong.

One example is the crap about Ohio. Everything was completely legal in 1803 when Ohio was admitted as a state. All requirements were met. An unnecessary formality was overlooked. In 1953, celebrating 150 years of statehood, Ohio decided that it would be nice to have the formality. They went through the motions (even holding the meeting in the old state capitol) of reapplying, to have the formality included with their statehood.

The claim that Ohio was not legally a state in 1913 is a complete falsehood.

I'm not going to spend any time researching the other claims (one lie makes the other statements suspect too). I am sure the author's intended audience has no desire for fact checking.

 

[Venix]

The guy's entire premise that "according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings" is complete bullshit and proves that he's done absolutely no research to support his idiotic position.

A "direct tax" in Constitutional law means a tax on property by reason of its ownership. Taxing wages has always been perfectly Constitutional, but taxing rent and investment income was considered direct taxation and thus would be required to be apportioned. Consequently, any national income tax prior to the 16th Amendment would only be able to tax wages, which was politically unfeasible.

Of course, the OP could have learned this himself by doing five minutes of research or just reading the Wikipedia article on the 16th Amendment.

 

[Lemon law]

I advocate that any US citizen has the right to refuse to pay their taxes authorized by the 16'th amendment. Of course there are certain downsides inherit in asserting that right, little things like, interest, penalties, IRS seizures, and even that other right to get free room in board in a Federal Prison not of your choosing.

Its why I pay my taxes, how about you? I tried paying my taxes with a smile, but those humor challenged bastards demanded legal currency in addition.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I advocate that any US citizen has the right to refuse to pay their taxes authorized by the 16'th amendment. Of course there are certain downsides inherit in asserting that right, little things like, interest, penalties, IRS seizures, and even that other right to get free room in board in a Federal Prison not of your choosing.

Its why I pay my taxes, how about you? I tried paying my taxes with a smile, but those humor challenged bastards demanded legal currency in addition.

The primary function of any government is to keep itself in power, that some are occasionally benign does not change that fact.

I was asked a question in a college years ago about what was the greatest crime one could commit. I said non-payment of taxes. I got an "A" in that class

 

[werepossum]

The problems with ratification of the 16th Amendment are well known, although I think this guy overplays them. Some of them are quite technical - for instance, the signatures required for a state to verify ratification may vary from federal requirements. Even good constitutional attorneys may vary on which is the correct requirement. One thing with which everyone should agree though is that the ratification (or lack thereof) of the 16th Amendment is of only academic interest. As a point of law, the 16th Amendment is established.

Venix's position is amusing, much like Butthead saying "Don't be stupid, Beavis, there's always been TV!" In fact SCOTUS ruled that not only were direct taxes prohibited except via apportionment, but indirect taxes which approached the function of direct taxes were also prohibited. (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) Otherwise there would have been no need for an Amendment establishing Congress's right to levy direct taxes. It is very clear that the Founders' intent was that the federal government would fund itself through duties and other indirect taxes. However at the time the solvency of the federal government was in question and as Hayabusa Rider says, government's first and highest obligation will always be to itself. Thus we have the 16th Amendment.

 

[ElFenix]

doesn't matter, the supreme court made clear that the 16th amendment is unnecessary and that pollock v. farmer's loan and trust co was wrongly decided.* further, even in that case it was set forth that income taxes were generally indirect taxes and thus constitutional.





*n Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), in which the United States Supreme Court reviewed Pollock, the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 and the Sixteenth Amendment, [the Court] concluded that "t was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes."

 

[Anarchist420]

The income tax is retarded. I wish what they'd do is cut the federal budget to $150 billion, have the states pay back the national debt based upon how many House seats they have (for example, Virginia would pay back 15Tx(11/438) and over 4 years), and for Federal taxes, nothing other than a 10% uniform tariff, and a 75 cent tax each on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of a pack of cigarettes and reduce the gas tax to 40cent a gallon. Then abolition of the Fed, paper currency, and legal tender laws. Fuck the government until it does all that. No Amendment is required; the only thing necessary is a 2/3 majority of Ron Paul Republicans in Congress

 

[ElFenix]

The income tax is retarded. I wish what they'd do is cut the federal budget to $150 billion, have the states pay back the national debt based upon how many House seats they have (for example, Virginia would pay back 15Tx(11/438) and over 4 years), and for Federal taxes, nothing other than a 10% uniform tariff, and a 75 cent tax each on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of a pack of cigarettes and reduce the gas tax to 40cent a gallon. Then abolition of the Fed, paper currency, and legal tender laws. Fuck the government until it does all that. No Amendment is required; the only thing necessary is a 2/3 majority of Ron Paul Republicans in Congress

the federal gas tax is already lower than $0.40, unless they've changed it very recently.

 

[Anarchist420]

I thought it was 50cent, but I guess you're right.

 

[First]

^ You are inordinately stupid. As in the handicapped kind.