Income Tax: is it legal in the USA?

[Nazaroo]

Here is the link to the documentary.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

If no law was actually ever passed, why should Americans pay income tax?

[Amazing Rando]

There was no need to pass a law, because something even more binding was already enacted: the Sixteenth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/):

"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. "

[Jimmy Higgins]

Al freaking Capone was convicted of Income Tax Evasion! If it were that simple... you think Capone of all people would have weaseled their way out of it.

[Conductor42]

The 16th ammendment was not legally ratified.

[Teallaura]

Last time I sorted through that mess it turned out that even if they were right about Missouri (?) it didn't matter because two more states ratified it later.

[Amazing Rando]

The 16th ammendment was not legally ratified.

:hrm: Then what the heck is it doing in the Constitution? I've never heard that claim before.

[Teallaura]

:hrm: Then what the heck is it doing in the Constitution? I've never heard that claim before.The story goes that Missouri (or was it Michigan? I think Missouri) did not ratify but it was reported as having done so anyway. There are several other claims of smaller improprieties as well.


The biggest problem with the thing is why didn't Missouri pitch a fit - afterall, they had rejected it, ya'd think they'd notice that little discrepancy when the IRS turned up....

[djdavo]

1. that guy who did the documentary is a nutter. crazy conspiracy theories aside, the 16th amendment gives congress the right to tax your socks if they want to.

2. this is SO not worth fighting over or even bringing up. go ahead an don't pay your income tax & see what happens. :-)

[Conductor42]

Actually, i'm much more interested into what happened to the original 13th ammendment.

[Teallaura]

:huh: Why the 13th? Did you mean 16th?

[Conductor42]

:huh: Why the 13th? Did you mean 16th?

Nah, the 13th.
The 16th ammendment has been around so long, and the IRS has done so well at refusing to answer any questions by those who question the legality of their methods, that it really doesn't matter anymore as far as the legality argument goes. I'm more interested in what will actually get things done, as far as reforming our tax system goes.

The original 13th ammendment reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
It was ratified on March 12, 1819, with Virginia being the final state to ratify it. It was in official documents, etc. until 1876... when it seemingly dissapeared. There is no record of being nullified, etc.

[Teallaura]

http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml

Wasn't ratified by 3/4's of the states.


Thereafter, in the 2d session of the Eleventh Congress, the Congress proposed the following article of amendment to the Constitution relating to acceptance by citizens of the United States of titles of nobility from any foreign government.


The proposed amendment, which was not ratified by three-fourths of the States, is as follows:


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several states, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, shall be valid and binding, as a part of the constitution of the United States.


If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

[Conductor42]

If that's true, why was it on the books until 1876?

[Teallaura]

What books?

[Teallaura]

Never mind, I got it. Virginia was number 12 to ratify. Unfortunately, at that time 13 were required. By the time Virginia ratified they needed 14 states. Now you'd need 26 more.

Here, these guys do a good job debunking the whole thing: http://www.thirdamendment.com/nobility.html

[Conductor42]

Ok, you just lost me with that first part. Your second and 3rd sentences contradict each other. But I'll look at the site.

[Teallaura]

At the time that the amendment was submitted 13 were required - sorry, didn't make that clear enough. By the time Virginia ratified, however, 14 were required.

[Conductor42]

OK, I read enough of that to consider this 'case closed'
But man, that guy certainly has an axe to grind!

[Teallaura]

:wink: Maybe - I'm kinda hoping he takes on the 16th Amendment flack next....

[Conductor42]

Maybe? Just because someone has an incorrect idea doesn't make them into extremists and liars.

Except, of course, if they're Neo-Conservatives, or Socialists. (Pretty much the same thing).
Then it's OK.

(j/k)

[djconklin]

The 16th ammendment was not legally ratified.


See http://www.apfn.org/apfn/16th.htm for a rebuttal

"Because the sixteenth amendment was duly certified by the Secretary of State, because defendants have not alleged that the minor variations in capitalization, punctuation and wording of the various state resolutions are materially different in purpose or effect from the language of the congressional joint resolution proposing adoption of the sixteenth amendment, and because the sixteenth amendment has been recognized and acted upon since 1913, the Court rejects defendants' argument that the sixteenth amendment is not a part of the United States Constitution."


Neo-Conservatives, or Socialists. (Pretty much the same thing).

Actually, they'd be on opposite ends (right and left, respectively) of the political spectrum. One step further and you'd have the Nazi's on the right and the Communists on the left.

[Conductor42]

Actually, they'd be on opposite ends (right and left, respectively) of the political spectrum. One step further and you'd have the Nazi's on the right and the Communists on the left.

You totally missed my point, but that's OK.
Read up Pat Buchanan's book, "Where the Right went Wrong" and you'll understand.

[djdavo]

You totally missed my point, but that's OK.
Read up Pat Buchanan's book, "Where the Right went Wrong" and you'll understand.

you mean the part where he wants us to go back to being isolationists? that's a sure fire way to crash this country's economy & throw us into a new depression....

[Conductor42]

Interesting find from WND:


Of the 48 states, here's the story:

* Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
* Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
* Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
* Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
* Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
* And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

[Teallaura]

Interesting find from WND:Which amendment?

Also, procedural errors do not automatically invalidate - depends on the severity of the error.

[Amazing Rando]

Has anyone ever tried to mount a court challenge to the ratification of the amendment? If so, how did it do?

[Conductor42]

Which amendment?

Also, procedural errors do not automatically invalidate - depends on the severity of the error.
16th.

[Conductor42]

Has anyone ever tried to mount a court challenge to the ratification of the amendment? If so, how did it do?
The govt. had agreed to look into this a few years back, but *suprise suprise* - they reneged on that.

[Ryokan]

You totally missed my point, but that's OK.
Read up Pat Buchanan's book, "Where the Right went Wrong" and you'll understand.

Pat Buchanan annoys me so much I want to slap em.

[Conductor42]

Like this?

:slap:

[Teallaura]

Has anyone ever tried to mount a court challenge to the ratification of the amendment? If so, how did it do?Yes, the Court rejected it. Someone quoted the important bit in Vigilante's thread on the same topic, I believe.

[djconklin]

>>>Neo-Conservatives, or Socialists. (Pretty much the same thing).
>>Actually, they'd be on opposite ends (right and left, respectively) of the political spectrum. One step further and you'd have the Nazi's on the right and the Communists on the left.
>You totally missed my point, but that's OK.

I didn't miss a thing. It's just my knowledge of the political spectrum is more factual and based on realitty.

[No Trust]

What is done is the law.