In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
As dlrjj said, the 16th is well settled law. While it is true that you have the choice to not pay taxes, one must be prepared for the legal consequences. In other words, Brown is wrong--there is a legal obligation to pay taxes. Put another way, if the same tortured reading were used on the Second Amendment, there would be no question that the government could restrict or eliminate everyone's right to own firearms.
Just for the record, Hamilton was no hero of the republic.
IMO, he wanted to turn our country right back to what we fought to remove ourselves from. IMO he was the FIRST snake in a suit. While he and Mr. Jefferson may have been Washington's advisors, Hamilton had dasteredly plans in mind. One was the treasury, which Jefferson was very much opposed to, for good reason.
quote:Originally posted by Automatic_ftp
there is a legal obligation to pay taxes.
Best Regards,
Bob
I don't think anyone disagrees taxes ARE necessary, however I belive the vast majority think taxes AND spending are OUT OF CONTROL. Remember that old expression "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" ?
I do, and I know I am NOT being represented. I know that taxing the same object MORE than once is theivery. Do you get paid for your labor more than once? Me either. YET we get taxes on income, property, sales tax, fuel tax, tire tax, sales tax on used vehicles AND new vehicles, Ect. ect. Do you honestly think IF any tax proposed were put before the paying public, they would jump to pass it? Your arguement that it IS legal BASED solely on the fact a law was passed, does not hold water. While we are supposed to obey the laws, that does NOT mean all laws are legal or correct. The Patriot act may be law, but spying into private lives are prohibited by the constitution. I will reconize the first 10 in the bill of rights and SOME proceeding them , NOT all.
To the point:
Just because there is something on paper does not make it right or moral. If congress were to pass a law saying your religion was outlawed based on a myraid reasons, does that make it ok? Neither is it "ok" to pay taxes when I have not the chance to vote on it. IF it were put to the ballot AND passed, then there is no argueing the right or wrong. However when elected politicians stab us in the back and pass unjust laws, they will not be removed . Unless it be by the point of a rifle by patriots.
The point in contention, is if the 16th was "legally" ratified. MANY people have researched it, and found that it did NOT receive the _ of the states needed to ratify it. I can't seem to find ANYONE that argues that point.
The government holds that since the 16th was challenged, went to the Supreme Court, and THEY upheld it as legal, then it's a done deal.
The Supreme Court ruling is ALL they have to go on. The Supreme Court has been wrong/changed their minds before, depending on who is sitting on the bench.
If the 16th didn't pass, through due process, according to the constitution, well......
I won't argue the legalities of it, just pointing this out. Others have/are arguing it. I will be a good little sheeple and pay my taxes.
There is a time and place for defiance, that time isn`t here.....yet.
I agree with the premise of the 16th. not being legally ratified due to the 3/4 of the states requirement.
Now,.........in reality, do I believe that these folks have a chance, or the previous hundreds that have tried this same scheme?
Not a chance in hell!
Like NYForester said,........the only way for this type of a protest to work, would be if thousands, did it at the same time. That will not happen any time soon.
I can see the possibility in the future, as the never ending spending, and deficits take their toll, the politicos will be forced to make dramatic tax increases, to continue the thousands of programs, and grants that they blow billions on.
If the illegals are allowed to stay, and get benefits also,.........it is a sure thing! That will break the bank so to speak.
First they will do as usual,.......they will soak the rich, but where we will be surprised, is in the fact of what will be considered "rich"!
I have no doubt that many of us here will become "rich" to the government at some point soon.
I have spent my whole life working like a dog, and living a "reserved" lifestyle, so that I could save for my future. I didn't blow everything, like so many do, on bigger homes, boats, fancier cars, etc!
By doing that, I have managed to save up a quite tidy sum of money, that is invested in many different things. I now have to make 1040 estimated tax payments in addition to the other massive taxes that I pay.
Does anyone believe that someone like me, that has basically worked their * off, and didn't behave like a fool, will be able to reap the rewards of my behaviour?
Hell, no,.........they will come up with more creative taxation means to take away from me,.........because of my responsible behaviour, and give it to those that have lived like morons.
It IS coming to a theatre near all of us soon,........maybe then a "tax revolt" will work.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
Here is the decision in the court case concerning the legality of the ratification. The same logic has been used in and for several other amendments, before and since. The 16th is legal, and all the wishful thinking and self delusion in the world are not going to change that fact.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
George M. HOUSE and Marion M. House, Defendants.
Nos. G85-23-01 CR, G85-23-02 CR.
United States District Court,
W.D. Michigan.
June 7, 1985.
George M. House and Marion M. House, in pro. per.
Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for defendants.
David M. Brown and Dana Boente, Dept. of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for plaintiff.
OPINION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO DISMISS
MILES, Chief Judge.
Defendants were indicted on March 7, 1985 on seven counts of tax
evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7201, and seven counts of failure to
file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on April 12, 1985, claiming that
the sixteenth amendment which grants Congress the power to lay taxes was
never properly ratified, and that as a result, all laws that have been
passed pursuant to the authority granted by the sixteenth amendment are
null and void.
The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss on April 30, 1985.
On May 21, 1985, the date noticed for jury selection, defendants submitted
a motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss on the basis that
the Court had not had the opportunity to consider all the evidence on the
subject of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment.
A hearing was held on Saturday, May 25, 1985. At that time
defendants introduced the testimony of William Benson, co-author of the
book, The Law That Never Was (1985). Mr. Benson testified that he had
researched the legislative history of the sixteenth amendment and had
discovered that in the ratification process only four states had passed
resolutions that quoted absolutely and accurately the sixteenth amendment
as proposed by Congress. All the other states which had allegedly passed
the amendment had in fact passed resolutions that in one or more ways
differed from the language of the Congressional resolution.
It is defendants' contention that Philander Knox, then Secretary
of State, was aware of the differences between the Congressional and the
state versions of the proposed amendment, but that he nevertheless
certified the amendment as having been ratified. This action, defendants
contend, was in violation of the law, and rendered void the certification
process.
The matter of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment as set
forth by the defendants is one of first impression. It has never been
before any appellate court of our nation.
In support of their contentions defendants introduced copies of
what Mr. Benson testified were certified documents he had obtained from
the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and copies of certified
documents he had obtained from eight of the forty-eight states he had
visited during his research. Over the objection of the government, which
had never had an opportunity to review the voluminous documents, the Court
agreed to provisionally admit the documents into evidence.
The documents illustrate that Secretary of State Philander Knox
was aware in 1913 that the resolutions passed by the various states were
not in every particular identical to the resolution adopted by Congress.
Philander Knox nevertheless certified that thirty-six states had ratified
the amendment. Some of the variances noted by Mr. Benson were the use of
the word "sources" instead of "source," the word "levy" instead of "lay,"
the word "income" instead of "incomes," and differences in capitalization
and punctuation. Mr. Benson presented evidence that Minnesota did not
provide a copy of the resolution it passed, even though the state of
Wyoming was specifically required to do so. He also presented evidence
that the state of Kentucky had never properly ratified the sixteenth
amendment.
Defendants have not, in either their initial motion or in their
motion for reconsideration, asserted any authority for their contention
that state resolutions are invalid if they do not exactly mirror in every
particular the amendment as proposed by Congress. Mr. Benson testified
that he was aware of no constitutional provision, no statute, and no cases
which state that errors in punctuation render an attempted ratification
null and void. Defendants' only authority for their assertion that the
ratification attempts were invalid is found in a Library of Congress
Congressional Research Service publication dated April 18, 1980. That
publication, according to defendant, states that the joint resolution must
contain in full the exact language of the proposed amendment, and that it
must contain a clear, unequivocal ratification clause. Defendants have
offered no evidence that such a publication is binding on this Court at
the present time, or on Philander Knox in 1913.
Neither has defendant offered any evidence that the variations of
text affected in any material way the meaning or intent of the sixteenth
amendment. Defendants have not shown the Court any evidence that a
resolution containing the word "levy" means anything different from a
resolution containing the word "lay." Neither have they shown any
significance deriving from the addition of the letter "s" to the word
"source" or the deletion of the letter "s" from the word "incomes."
Defendants have not shown that the meaning of the amendment was altered in
any way by the omission of a comma or the failure to capitalize a word.
Defendants have merely pointed to technical variances which may be
of some historical interest, but which have no substantive effect on the
meaning of the sixteenth amendment.
In Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505
(1922), the Supreme Court was faced with the contention that the ratifying
resolutions of Tennessee and West Virginia for the fifteenth amendment
were inoperative because they were adopted in violation of the rules of
legislative procedure prevailing in the respective states. The Court
rejected this attack on the ratification procedure, stating: As the
legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the
resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly
authenticated, that they had done so was conclusive upon him, and, being
certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. Id. at
137, 42 S.Ct. at 218.
Philander Knox, Secretary of State in 1913, certified that the
requisite number of states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. This
certification was not made without knowledge of the minor discrepancies
between the proposed amendment and the resolutions of the various states,
as evidenced by the February 15, 1913 memorandum from the Office of the
Solicitor. In that memorandum Mr. Knox was alerted to the errors in the
resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the
sixteenth amendment. Nevertheless, the memorandum recommended that he
issue a declaration announcing the adoption of the sixteenth amendment.
The memorandum noted that errors in wording, capitalization and
punctuation had also been made in the resolutions of the states ratifying
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, but that those errors had been
found to be immaterial to the adoption of the amendments. The reasoning
in this memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor is as persuasive to
this Court as it apparently was to Secretary Knox: It should, moreover, be
observed that it seems clearly to have been the intention of the
legislature in each and every case to accept and ratify the 16th amendment
as proposed by Congress. Again, the incorporation of the terms of the
proposed amendment in the ratifying resolution seems in every case merely
to have been by way of recitation. In no case has any legislature
signified in any way its deliberate intention to change the wording of the
proposed amendment. The errors appear in most cases to have been merely
typographical and incidental to an attempt to make an accurate
quotation. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a
legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed
by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the
right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment. It, therefore,
seems a necessary presumption, in the absence of no express stipulation to
the contrary, that a legislature did not intend to do something that it
had not the power to do, but rather that it intended to do something that
it had the power to do, namely, where its action has been affirmative, to
ratify the amendment proposed by Congress. Moreover, it could not be
presumed that by a mere change of wording probably inadvertent, the
legislature had intended to reject the amendment as proposed by Congress
where all parts of the resolution other than those merely reciting the
proposed amendment had set forth an affirmative action by the legislature.
For these reasons it is believed that the Secretary of State should in the
present instance include in his declaration announcing the adoption of the
16th amendment to the Constitution the States referred to notwithstanding
it appears that errors exist in the certified copies of Resolutions passed
by the Legislatures of those States ratifying such amendment. February 15,
1913 Memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor, pp. 15-16, quoted in The
Law That Never Was, pp. 19-20.
Finally, the Court notes that the sixteenth amendment has been in
existence for over half a century and has been applied by the Supreme
Court in hundreds of cases. As stated in Maryland Petition Committee
v. Johnson, 265 F.Supp. 823, 826 (D.Md.1967)), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 835,
89 S.Ct. 109, 21 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968), "While age and usage are not absolute
barriers to judicial inquiry, the courts have recognized them as
persuasive indicia of validity."
In upholding the fifteenth amendment against constitutional
challenge the United States Supreme Court noted that it "has been
recognized and acted on for half a century." Leser v. Garnett, 258
U.S. 130, 136, 42 S.Ct. 217, 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922). In United States
v. Association of Citizens Councils, 187 F.Supp. 846, 848 (W.D.La.1960),
the constitutionality of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments was
upheld "In the light of hundreds of cases in which the United States
Supreme Court has applied the amendments." Similarly, in United States
v. Gugel, 119 F.Supp. 897, 900 (E.D.Ky.1954), in rejecting a
constitutional attack on the fourteenth amendment, the Court found legal
significance in the fact that the fourteenth amendment had been recognized
and acted upon by the Supreme Court for more than three-quarters of a
century.
The sixteenth amendment and the tax laws passed pursuant to it
have been followed by the courts for over half a century. They represent
the recognized law of the land.
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.
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is an art form.
Dlrjj,........I get your point that it is considered valid law!
I was saying that these folks don't have a prayer.
The only thing that will change the way we are taxed,.........regardless of the Constitutional arguments, is a "massive" tax revolt.
My point was, that may come someday soon, when taxes are hiked to levels necessary to cover all of this frivilous spending. Bring in 12 to 20 million illegals, and it will go through the roof,.......... what is necessary to pay the bills.
Are you going to sit still when your taxes are doubled, or tripled?
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
I presume you are a CPA, or Investment Advisor,.......correct?
Or possibly you take advantage of the above!
I am sure I could do more of what you are speaking about myself![;)]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
My point is simply that income tax laws are on the books, that they are the law of the land, have been held to be so repeatedly, and that people still have a choice--in effect, pay or go to jail.
You appear to be melding "legal" and "moral." When a law is passed and upheld, that does make it "legal." Whether the law should have been passed in the first place is an entirely different (moral) question not at issue here. The question raised is whether or not the federal government has the power to tax. It does. I will not disagree with you if you think we are taxed absurdly--clearly we are.
Also, just because you didn't have an opportunity to vote on a federal tax does not render it illegal. We live in a democratic republic, not a democracy. We are thus bound by the actions of current and past legislators, and if you are dissatisfied with what legislators do, you work to remove them.
Finally, the Constitution does not prohibit spying on citizens (or anyone else, for that matter......). The Fourth Amendment simply prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and describes the process by which a search warrant may issue. In my view, the Patriot Act goes too far, and should be repealed line by line. However, until a court strikes parts of it down, it is the law the land.
Best Regards,
Bob
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Automatic_ftp
there is a legal obligation to pay taxes.
Best Regards,
Bob
I don't think anyone disagrees taxes ARE necessary, however I belive the vast majority think taxes AND spending are OUT OF CONTROL. Remember that old expression "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" ?
I do, and I know I am NOT being represented. I know that taxing the same object MORE than once is theivery. Do you get paid for your labor more than once? Me either. YET we get taxes on income, property, sales tax, fuel tax, tire tax, sales tax on used vehicles AND new vehicles, Ect. ect. Do you honestly think IF any tax proposed were put before the paying public, they would jump to pass it? Your arguement that it IS legal BASED solely on the fact a law was passed, does not hold water. While we are supposed to obey the laws, that does NOT mean all laws are legal or correct. The Patriot act may be law, but spying into private lives are prohibited by the constitution. I will reconize the first 10 in the bill of rights and SOME proceeding them , NOT all.
To the point:
Just because there is something on paper does not make it right or moral. If congress were to pass a law saying your religion was outlawed based on a myraid reasons, does that make it ok? Neither is it "ok" to pay taxes when I have not the chance to vote on it. IF it were put to the ballot AND passed, then there is no argueing the right or wrong. However when elected politicians stab us in the back and pass unjust laws, they will not be removed . Unless it be by the point of a rifle by patriots.
Related articles:
Feds gather; Browns unscathed (June 08, 2007)
Feds: No raid on Brown house (June 07, 2007)
The marshal's letter to the Browns (April 25, 2007)
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
The point in contention, is if the 16th was "legally" ratified. MANY people have researched it, and found that it did NOT receive the _ of the states needed to ratify it. I can't seem to find ANYONE that argues that point.
The Sixteenth Amendment was indeed ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. In fact, 42 out of 45 states passed it with only three states rejecting the Amendment.
And speaking of Ron Paul:
Ron Paul tops McCain in fundraising surprise | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Fiscal Responsibility Even In A Presidential Race..... He has my support and my vote if he wins the nomination!!! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4969941.html
And speaking of Ron Paul:
Ron Paul tops McCain in fundraising surprise | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Fiscal Responsibility Even In A Presidential Race..... He has my support and my vote if he wins the nomination!!! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4969941.html
Interesting. I heard yesterday on the radio that Republicans might ask him not to run as a Republican. I wonder how long before we see a new strong party and finally go to two-party system.
For all you Monday Night Arm-chair Lawyers and supporters of big Government: He is not Ed Brown but this is a good place/thread to post this!!
THE POWER TO DESTROY:
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability:
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation!!
The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat - ultimately - the income tax in the United States.
But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.
Elaine Brown was on Coast to Coast AM this evening with George Noory. They took about 4 or 5 callers and I only counted one who was against George and Elaine's position. He gave probably the scariest quote I have heard in a while. This personifies the mindset of the sheeple in this country:
"I was born and raised to pay (income tax)... you pay and you move on."
The brainwashing is working very effectively. The slow indoctrination apparently was the correct process to Communism, contrary to the Soviet experiment.
You said it, WoundedWolf. I had this debate with a lot of cow-orkers and most of them expressed similar sentiments. It's the key to any revolution - conquer the hearts and minds and everything else will follow. Most don't know any better and don't even have a clue that it could and should be different. I think our kind is dying off and there'll be no change for freedom in the following decades if not hundreds. It would take generations to root and develop a new idea, unless there's a drastic change in eliminating people freedoms, and even then, if the mass is well fed -- it'll follow the same route. It's sad, but it's a fact of life - most people would rather live on their knees than die.
He is a patriot. He is absolutely correct that the law does not require him or 90+% of the american people to pay an income tax. The only thing that makes us pay it is the fact that you will be unlawfully prosecuted, jailed, or killed (i hope this doesn't happen to the Browns) if you don't pay it.
Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" is an excellent documentary well worth watching and sharing with friends. When asked if he pays the income tax, he said yes. He was asked why and he said (paraphrased from memory) "If the mafia comes to you and tells you you have to pay $2000 dollars or they will hurt your family, what do you do? You pay it. That doesn't mean it's legal or right."
Comments
Best Regards,
Bob
IMO, he wanted to turn our country right back to what we fought to remove ourselves from. IMO he was the FIRST snake in a suit. While he and Mr. Jefferson may have been Washington's advisors, Hamilton had dasteredly plans in mind. One was the treasury, which Jefferson was very much opposed to, for good reason.
there is a legal obligation to pay taxes.
Best Regards,
Bob
I don't think anyone disagrees taxes ARE necessary, however I belive the vast majority think taxes AND spending are OUT OF CONTROL. Remember that old expression "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" ?
I do, and I know I am NOT being represented. I know that taxing the same object MORE than once is theivery. Do you get paid for your labor more than once? Me either. YET we get taxes on income, property, sales tax, fuel tax, tire tax, sales tax on used vehicles AND new vehicles, Ect. ect. Do you honestly think IF any tax proposed were put before the paying public, they would jump to pass it? Your arguement that it IS legal BASED solely on the fact a law was passed, does not hold water. While we are supposed to obey the laws, that does NOT mean all laws are legal or correct. The Patriot act may be law, but spying into private lives are prohibited by the constitution. I will reconize the first 10 in the bill of rights and SOME proceeding them , NOT all.
To the point:
Just because there is something on paper does not make it right or moral. If congress were to pass a law saying your religion was outlawed based on a myraid reasons, does that make it ok? Neither is it "ok" to pay taxes when I have not the chance to vote on it. IF it were put to the ballot AND passed, then there is no argueing the right or wrong. However when elected politicians stab us in the back and pass unjust laws, they will not be removed . Unless it be by the point of a rifle by patriots.
The government holds that since the 16th was challenged, went to the Supreme Court, and THEY upheld it as legal, then it's a done deal.
The Supreme Court ruling is ALL they have to go on. The Supreme Court has been wrong/changed their minds before, depending on who is sitting on the bench.
If the 16th didn't pass, through due process, according to the constitution, well......
I won't argue the legalities of it, just pointing this out. Others have/are arguing it. I will be a good little sheeple and pay my taxes.
There is a time and place for defiance, that time isn`t here.....yet.
Now,.........in reality, do I believe that these folks have a chance, or the previous hundreds that have tried this same scheme?
Not a chance in hell!
Like NYForester said,........the only way for this type of a protest to work, would be if thousands, did it at the same time. That will not happen any time soon.
I can see the possibility in the future, as the never ending spending, and deficits take their toll, the politicos will be forced to make dramatic tax increases, to continue the thousands of programs, and grants that they blow billions on.
If the illegals are allowed to stay, and get benefits also,.........it is a sure thing! That will break the bank so to speak.
First they will do as usual,.......they will soak the rich, but where we will be surprised, is in the fact of what will be considered "rich"!
I have no doubt that many of us here will become "rich" to the government at some point soon.
I have spent my whole life working like a dog, and living a "reserved" lifestyle, so that I could save for my future. I didn't blow everything, like so many do, on bigger homes, boats, fancier cars, etc!
By doing that, I have managed to save up a quite tidy sum of money, that is invested in many different things. I now have to make 1040 estimated tax payments in addition to the other massive taxes that I pay.
Does anyone believe that someone like me, that has basically worked their * off, and didn't behave like a fool, will be able to reap the rewards of my behaviour?
Hell, no,.........they will come up with more creative taxation means to take away from me,.........because of my responsible behaviour, and give it to those that have lived like morons.
It IS coming to a theatre near all of us soon,........maybe then a "tax revolt" will work.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
George M. HOUSE and Marion M. House, Defendants.
Nos. G85-23-01 CR, G85-23-02 CR.
United States District Court,
W.D. Michigan.
June 7, 1985.
George M. House and Marion M. House, in pro. per.
Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., Huntsville, Ala., for defendants.
David M. Brown and Dana Boente, Dept. of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for plaintiff.
OPINION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO DISMISS
MILES, Chief Judge.
Defendants were indicted on March 7, 1985 on seven counts of tax
evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7201, and seven counts of failure to
file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on April 12, 1985, claiming that
the sixteenth amendment which grants Congress the power to lay taxes was
never properly ratified, and that as a result, all laws that have been
passed pursuant to the authority granted by the sixteenth amendment are
null and void.
The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss on April 30, 1985.
On May 21, 1985, the date noticed for jury selection, defendants submitted
a motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss on the basis that
the Court had not had the opportunity to consider all the evidence on the
subject of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment.
A hearing was held on Saturday, May 25, 1985. At that time
defendants introduced the testimony of William Benson, co-author of the
book, The Law That Never Was (1985). Mr. Benson testified that he had
researched the legislative history of the sixteenth amendment and had
discovered that in the ratification process only four states had passed
resolutions that quoted absolutely and accurately the sixteenth amendment
as proposed by Congress. All the other states which had allegedly passed
the amendment had in fact passed resolutions that in one or more ways
differed from the language of the Congressional resolution.
It is defendants' contention that Philander Knox, then Secretary
of State, was aware of the differences between the Congressional and the
state versions of the proposed amendment, but that he nevertheless
certified the amendment as having been ratified. This action, defendants
contend, was in violation of the law, and rendered void the certification
process.
The matter of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment as set
forth by the defendants is one of first impression. It has never been
before any appellate court of our nation.
In support of their contentions defendants introduced copies of
what Mr. Benson testified were certified documents he had obtained from
the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and copies of certified
documents he had obtained from eight of the forty-eight states he had
visited during his research. Over the objection of the government, which
had never had an opportunity to review the voluminous documents, the Court
agreed to provisionally admit the documents into evidence.
The documents illustrate that Secretary of State Philander Knox
was aware in 1913 that the resolutions passed by the various states were
not in every particular identical to the resolution adopted by Congress.
Philander Knox nevertheless certified that thirty-six states had ratified
the amendment. Some of the variances noted by Mr. Benson were the use of
the word "sources" instead of "source," the word "levy" instead of "lay,"
the word "income" instead of "incomes," and differences in capitalization
and punctuation. Mr. Benson presented evidence that Minnesota did not
provide a copy of the resolution it passed, even though the state of
Wyoming was specifically required to do so. He also presented evidence
that the state of Kentucky had never properly ratified the sixteenth
amendment.
Defendants have not, in either their initial motion or in their
motion for reconsideration, asserted any authority for their contention
that state resolutions are invalid if they do not exactly mirror in every
particular the amendment as proposed by Congress. Mr. Benson testified
that he was aware of no constitutional provision, no statute, and no cases
which state that errors in punctuation render an attempted ratification
null and void. Defendants' only authority for their assertion that the
ratification attempts were invalid is found in a Library of Congress
Congressional Research Service publication dated April 18, 1980. That
publication, according to defendant, states that the joint resolution must
contain in full the exact language of the proposed amendment, and that it
must contain a clear, unequivocal ratification clause. Defendants have
offered no evidence that such a publication is binding on this Court at
the present time, or on Philander Knox in 1913.
Neither has defendant offered any evidence that the variations of
text affected in any material way the meaning or intent of the sixteenth
amendment. Defendants have not shown the Court any evidence that a
resolution containing the word "levy" means anything different from a
resolution containing the word "lay." Neither have they shown any
significance deriving from the addition of the letter "s" to the word
"source" or the deletion of the letter "s" from the word "incomes."
Defendants have not shown that the meaning of the amendment was altered in
any way by the omission of a comma or the failure to capitalize a word.
Defendants have merely pointed to technical variances which may be
of some historical interest, but which have no substantive effect on the
meaning of the sixteenth amendment.
In Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505
(1922), the Supreme Court was faced with the contention that the ratifying
resolutions of Tennessee and West Virginia for the fifteenth amendment
were inoperative because they were adopted in violation of the rules of
legislative procedure prevailing in the respective states. The Court
rejected this attack on the ratification procedure, stating: As the
legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the
resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly
authenticated, that they had done so was conclusive upon him, and, being
certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. Id. at
137, 42 S.Ct. at 218.
Philander Knox, Secretary of State in 1913, certified that the
requisite number of states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. This
certification was not made without knowledge of the minor discrepancies
between the proposed amendment and the resolutions of the various states,
as evidenced by the February 15, 1913 memorandum from the Office of the
Solicitor. In that memorandum Mr. Knox was alerted to the errors in the
resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the
sixteenth amendment. Nevertheless, the memorandum recommended that he
issue a declaration announcing the adoption of the sixteenth amendment.
The memorandum noted that errors in wording, capitalization and
punctuation had also been made in the resolutions of the states ratifying
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, but that those errors had been
found to be immaterial to the adoption of the amendments. The reasoning
in this memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor is as persuasive to
this Court as it apparently was to Secretary Knox: It should, moreover, be
observed that it seems clearly to have been the intention of the
legislature in each and every case to accept and ratify the 16th amendment
as proposed by Congress. Again, the incorporation of the terms of the
proposed amendment in the ratifying resolution seems in every case merely
to have been by way of recitation. In no case has any legislature
signified in any way its deliberate intention to change the wording of the
proposed amendment. The errors appear in most cases to have been merely
typographical and incidental to an attempt to make an accurate
quotation. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a
legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed
by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the
right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment. It, therefore,
seems a necessary presumption, in the absence of no express stipulation to
the contrary, that a legislature did not intend to do something that it
had not the power to do, but rather that it intended to do something that
it had the power to do, namely, where its action has been affirmative, to
ratify the amendment proposed by Congress. Moreover, it could not be
presumed that by a mere change of wording probably inadvertent, the
legislature had intended to reject the amendment as proposed by Congress
where all parts of the resolution other than those merely reciting the
proposed amendment had set forth an affirmative action by the legislature.
For these reasons it is believed that the Secretary of State should in the
present instance include in his declaration announcing the adoption of the
16th amendment to the Constitution the States referred to notwithstanding
it appears that errors exist in the certified copies of Resolutions passed
by the Legislatures of those States ratifying such amendment. February 15,
1913 Memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor, pp. 15-16, quoted in The
Law That Never Was, pp. 19-20.
Finally, the Court notes that the sixteenth amendment has been in
existence for over half a century and has been applied by the Supreme
Court in hundreds of cases. As stated in Maryland Petition Committee
v. Johnson, 265 F.Supp. 823, 826 (D.Md.1967)), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 835,
89 S.Ct. 109, 21 L.Ed.2d 106 (1968), "While age and usage are not absolute
barriers to judicial inquiry, the courts have recognized them as
persuasive indicia of validity."
In upholding the fifteenth amendment against constitutional
challenge the United States Supreme Court noted that it "has been
recognized and acted on for half a century." Leser v. Garnett, 258
U.S. 130, 136, 42 S.Ct. 217, 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922). In United States
v. Association of Citizens Councils, 187 F.Supp. 846, 848 (W.D.La.1960),
the constitutionality of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments was
upheld "In the light of hundreds of cases in which the United States
Supreme Court has applied the amendments." Similarly, in United States
v. Gugel, 119 F.Supp. 897, 900 (E.D.Ky.1954), in rejecting a
constitutional attack on the fourteenth amendment, the Court found legal
significance in the fact that the fourteenth amendment had been recognized
and acted upon by the Supreme Court for more than three-quarters of a
century.
The sixteenth amendment and the tax laws passed pursuant to it
have been followed by the courts for over half a century. They represent
the recognized law of the land.
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.
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
I was saying that these folks don't have a prayer.
The only thing that will change the way we are taxed,.........regardless of the Constitutional arguments, is a "massive" tax revolt.
My point was, that may come someday soon, when taxes are hiked to levels necessary to cover all of this frivilous spending. Bring in 12 to 20 million illegals, and it will go through the roof,.......... what is necessary to pay the bills.
Are you going to sit still when your taxes are doubled, or tripled?
They may be legal, they may be needed to a significant extent, but they are never going to be appreciated or wanted - at least by me.[:)]
Or possibly you take advantage of the above!
I am sure I could do more of what you are speaking about myself![;)]
Patriot!!!
I vote patriot as well. BTW, love the sigline.
My point is simply that income tax laws are on the books, that they are the law of the land, have been held to be so repeatedly, and that people still have a choice--in effect, pay or go to jail.
You appear to be melding "legal" and "moral." When a law is passed and upheld, that does make it "legal." Whether the law should have been passed in the first place is an entirely different (moral) question not at issue here. The question raised is whether or not the federal government has the power to tax. It does. I will not disagree with you if you think we are taxed absurdly--clearly we are.
Also, just because you didn't have an opportunity to vote on a federal tax does not render it illegal. We live in a democratic republic, not a democracy. We are thus bound by the actions of current and past legislators, and if you are dissatisfied with what legislators do, you work to remove them.
Finally, the Constitution does not prohibit spying on citizens (or anyone else, for that matter......). The Fourth Amendment simply prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and describes the process by which a search warrant may issue. In my view, the Patriot Act goes too far, and should be repealed line by line. However, until a court strikes parts of it down, it is the law the land.
Best Regards,
Bob
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Automatic_ftp
there is a legal obligation to pay taxes.
Best Regards,
Bob
I don't think anyone disagrees taxes ARE necessary, however I belive the vast majority think taxes AND spending are OUT OF CONTROL. Remember that old expression "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" ?
I do, and I know I am NOT being represented. I know that taxing the same object MORE than once is theivery. Do you get paid for your labor more than once? Me either. YET we get taxes on income, property, sales tax, fuel tax, tire tax, sales tax on used vehicles AND new vehicles, Ect. ect. Do you honestly think IF any tax proposed were put before the paying public, they would jump to pass it? Your arguement that it IS legal BASED solely on the fact a law was passed, does not hold water. While we are supposed to obey the laws, that does NOT mean all laws are legal or correct. The Patriot act may be law, but spying into private lives are prohibited by the constitution. I will reconize the first 10 in the bill of rights and SOME proceeding them , NOT all.
To the point:
Just because there is something on paper does not make it right or moral. If congress were to pass a law saying your religion was outlawed based on a myraid reasons, does that make it ok? Neither is it "ok" to pay taxes when I have not the chance to vote on it. IF it were put to the ballot AND passed, then there is no argueing the right or wrong. However when elected politicians stab us in the back and pass unjust laws, they will not be removed . Unless it be by the point of a rifle by patriots.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849389/posts
Browns get five years - A Concord Monitor Article - Your News Source - Concord NH 03301
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/REPOSITORY/704250341
Related articles:
Feds gather; Browns unscathed (June 08, 2007)
Feds: No raid on Brown house (June 07, 2007)
The marshal's letter to the Browns (April 25, 2007)
The point in contention, is if the 16th was "legally" ratified. MANY people have researched it, and found that it did NOT receive the _ of the states needed to ratify it. I can't seem to find ANYONE that argues that point.
The Sixteenth Amendment was indeed ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. In fact, 42 out of 45 states passed it with only three states rejecting the Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_process
I would very much like to see the evidence that it was NOT ratified by at least 36 state legislatures.
Browns throw themselves a party - A Concord Monitor Article - Your News Source - Concord NH 03301
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/REPOSITORY/707150385/0/NEWS01
And speaking of Ron Paul:
Ron Paul tops McCain in fundraising surprise | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Fiscal Responsibility Even In A Presidential Race..... He has my support and my vote if he wins the nomination!!!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4969941.html
And speaking of Ron Paul:
Ron Paul tops McCain in fundraising surprise | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Fiscal Responsibility Even In A Presidential Race..... He has my support and my vote if he wins the nomination!!!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4969941.html
Interesting. I heard yesterday on the radio that Republicans might ask him not to run as a Republican. I wonder how long before we see a new strong party and finally go to two-party system.
THE POWER TO DESTROY:
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability:
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation!!
The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat - ultimately - the income tax in the United States.
But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855
Now Bring on the SCOTUS Review of Parker vs D.C.
Ron Paul In 08 -- The Only hope for our Constitutional Survival!!
"I was born and raised to pay (income tax)... you pay and you move on."
The brainwashing is working very effectively. The slow indoctrination apparently was the correct process to Communism, contrary to the Soviet experiment.
Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" is an excellent documentary well worth watching and sharing with friends. When asked if he pays the income tax, he said yes. He was asked why and he said (paraphrased from memory) "If the mafia comes to you and tells you you have to pay $2000 dollars or they will hurt your family, what do you do? You pay it. That doesn't mean it's legal or right."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1048&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0