Once upon a time... if your house caught on fire... it burned to a crisp... and so did your neighbors home. And guess who paid for it all? But some smart person thought...hmmm...I'll send out my water trucks to your home IF... you pay me money every month aka insurance. The states .... decided to give Everyone FIRE protection... which makes it socialism. You want to go back to the old days people? Can you afford to go back to the old days people? The rich can...the hard up poor...can't.
@frickadele Ur saying that fire protection by the government equals socialism? So basically any kind of state intervention equals to socialism to you. LOL your an idiot
@DIZamudio Yuri Maltzev defines any government(small or big) as socialistic in its nature because socialism is defined as government control. So fire protection by the government is socialism, but the government intervening in that manner may not be considered a socialistic government
The Bolseivicks didn't overthrow the Czar. It was another group...who's name I don't remember... simple because history is written by the victors. But shortly afterwards... the Bolshevick's overthrew THAT group. How typical! Remember the Brits used the Arabs to overthrow parts of the Ottoman Empire and then the Brits overthrew the Arabs. NEVER EVER trust a foreigner...who says that they want to help your country. That foreigner WANTS your country... and are using you to get to it.
This country is going to hell in a handbasket if we don't step it up. So many of you blindly deny the existence of the NWO and their Globalist agenda. OPEN YOUR EYES! Already our country has been plauged by conformity. The government is already taking our money by illegal means. If you disagree, then you have serious problems.
Empty false arguments...you've provided proof that our "independent judiciary" is anything but...it's a meaningless argument to state that we'd be laughed out of any courtroom...meaningless emotional drivel...
iTS Americas loss that socialism has become such a negative word. Without Socialism we in Europe would be far worse off, although neoliberalism is doing its best to send us back to the dark ages.
What is that all about Alex? You talk about "corporatocracy" -- the take over of America by banks and corporations. And yet there is a Starbucks logo on your screen.
Is that product placement? Are you on Starbucks' payroll? Is that your corporate sponsor? Have you been bought off, Alex? Are you a corporate stooge?
Alex, it's not "socialist health care" when provate insurance companies drafted the bill and get the profit! Private sector profitting from government co-operatiion is FASCISM!
And I do think real public (socialist as you would call it) health care is a good thing. But then, it's your loss in America if you don't want it.
I agree with a man AJ interviews months ago who disagreed that our gun rights were that important. I don't give a fuck. I love my guns but if they are gone I'll fight with my kitchen knives a brick or a pitch fork. Where there is a will there is a way.
People who believe Alex Jones & his theories are just like those who believed Harold Camping (the rapture is going to happen May 21 . 2011).......You idiots are one in the same.......Alex Jones is your Harold Camping.
The Tea Party isn't going to bring freedom. They may bring less tranny, but certainly not freedom. The only way to truely have freedom is to have anarchy. I know the american sheeple arn't ready for that.
The tentacles of government have reached into every aspect of our lives. Now that gas prices are so high, they may tax our bare feet for walking too far next (since many cannot afford shoes). Only the bankers/corporations/foreign governments (AIPAC)/military industrial complex and their lobbys are recognized because they pay for the political campaigns of these charlatans we call the Congress and Senate. We have massive taxation with no representation as individuals. And I for one am sick of it!
everyone blames,and hopes governments wil save them but governments in any western country sold the comanding heights long time ago,oil factories,metals,banks,energy.the free market (the stock market controls the price of oil,food,metals,clothes,finance.so you see they control the economy all the government can do is wacth and pretend like they have power but really they just stand on the sideline just like you and me wacthing and praying hoping things will get better
go to: kip6 (dot) b l o g s p o t (dot) c o m AND watch some interesting documentarys, and PLEASE share this simple and easy to use blog with your friends who might want to educate themselfs.... enjoy :-)
@SadegoGG You seriously are a lost puppy... show me where there's proof the 16th A was actually ratified and maybe I won't write you off as a fluoridated idiot... Do some historical research...or better yet take 3 minutes and do a simple google search for the multitude of books written that prove it was not...
A real patriot will tell the truth, if you have evidence to the contrary present it or go back to your parents basement and hide like the child you are...
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s),
Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.
According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U. S. House of Representatives, the dates of ratification by the states were (chronologically):
Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911;
Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).
The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986): “Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution.
It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.)
Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
@SadegoGG Key term here "income". Income is not the same thing as wages. Income is monies earned without labor, ie. interest, captial gains, etc. Wages are not synonymous with income. See also, Mark Eisner vs. Myrtle H. Macomber 252 US 189: "Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says that “gross income” (which is the starting point for determining “taxable income”) means “all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items....”
Sometimes the claim is that “compensation for services” is not the same as “wages.”
Sometimes the claim is that “wages” are not the same as “gain” or “profit.” (See the discussion below on the claim that wages represent an equal, nontaxable exchange of labor for money.) Sometimes the claim is something else. Regardless of the rationale, the result is always the same: Wages are income.
Consider these statements by the United States Supreme Court:
“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”
Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913). “There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
@gerrilea1 “[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”
C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945). “Wages usually are income ....”
Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).
@gerrilea1 “[T]he premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. (Citation omitted.) Since the gain would have been income, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income.”
Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987), (plurality opinion of Justice Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Stevens, Blackmun concurring in the result; footnote omitted).
“The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code.
As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert ‘the full measure of its taxing power,’ [citation omitted] and to bring within the definition of income any ‘accessio[n] to wealth.’ [citation omitted] There is no dispute that the settlement awards in this case [for ‘back wages’ to compensate for sex discrimination] would constitute gross income within the reach of 61(a).”
United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992). Later in the same opinion, the Supreme Court referred to the compensation received by the taxpayers as “the wages properly due them - wages that, if paid in the ordinary course, would have been fully taxable.” 504 U.S. at 241. “It [I.R.C. section 104, relating to compensation for personal injuries] also excludes from taxation those damages that substitute, say,
for lost wages, which would have been taxed had the victim earned them.”
O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996). “Even if we suppose that strike benefits are made to compensate in a sense for the loss of wages, the principle of payments in compensation does not apply because the thing compensated for, the wages, had they been received, would have been included in gross income.”
United States v. Kaiser, 363 U.S. 299, 311 (1960).
@gerrilea1 “It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek’ s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.”
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 204 (1991), (emphasis added).
Then there are the decisions of the Circuit Courts:
Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-474; ; Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986). “Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional.”
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), citing United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984);
“Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant’s entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME.
Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable.”
United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal failures to file affirmed). “[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation.”
Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994). “Furthermore, § 61(a) of the Code defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived, including . . . compensation for services.’
In sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term ‘income’ includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered. Taxpayers’ argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous.”
@gerrilea1 “Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under the Tax Code, wages are income.”
Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986). “Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.”
United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
@gerrilea1 “Irrefutably, wages earned in compensation for services are “income” pursuant to the federal tax laws.”
Boubel v. United States, 86 AFTR2d ¸2000-5123, No. 1:99-cv-380 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Tenn. 6/22/2000). “[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: ‘WAGES ARE INCOME.’ ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous....”
Hill v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 118, 120-22 (M.D. Tenn. 1984), (emphasis in original), (quoting United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984)). “As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (5) wages are not income....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
@gerrilea1 “[P]laintiff’s claim that wages are not subject to taxation has been so soundly rejected that plaintiff has risked the imposition of sanctions by raising this argument at all.”
Fuselier v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 8 (2004). “[W]ages are indeed income subject to taxation.”
Hamzik v. United States, 92 AFTR 2d 2003-5743, KTC 2003-497 (Fed.Cls. 2003).
“No reasonable person could seriously think that, for example, the revenue laws can be avoided, and the government’s tax collection efforts can be brought to a standstill by the contention that wages are not income.”
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 56 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280 (complaints dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing frivolous actions “brought in bad faith”).
and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.
@SadegoGG Key term here, "similar blunders"...who are you to claim the "mistakes" were mistakes???? The "letter of the law" is again, "the letter of the law". If a police officer quotes the wrong statute that he/she is attempting to bring charges under, their error is grounds for any and all charges to be dismissed. Those "clerical errors" are the same, making it null & void. This is settled law. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
As I described, the Secretary of State Knox took the small differences into consideration. States and senators have not come out and complained about Knox's position. If a Constitutional Amendment's validity is going to be questioned, its up for the state legislatures and Senators to debate about and resolve the issue. Its clear the states were in support of the 16th amendment, and were not taken out of context.
@SadegoGG Mr. Knox was never granted such authority to decide anything. His only legal action he must have undertaken would be to request clarification from the States that had those "clerical errors" or "blunders". Herein lays the biggest swindle in human history. A public servant taking it upon himself to decide something he never had any granted powers to do. The Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, Congress cannot "define" anything in the Constitution, only through Article V can they.
Now, if a cop gives you a ticket and, lets say, provides you with the wrong statute number. The judge will call the cop up and ask for the offense then make an administrative amendment fixing the mistake. You have been watching too many crime shows on television if you think you can completely get out of legal troubles for a small error in a statute. Can you name some judges and the case numbers that have ruled in favor of the position you have advocated regarding statutes?
@SadegoGG You sir have never been in court then. I personally have had "violations" dismissed for exactly that reason. And you're wrong on the "judge will call the cop up and ask then make an administrative amendment fixing the mistake"...The Judge does not have that authority. Only the officer whom brought the charges or the Prosecuting Attorney can...please review our Constitution. Administrative decisions are a clever "run-a-around" of our Constitution. They hold no authority or power.
@SadegoGG Seriously you have no clue, do one simple google search with the term, "how many criminals get charges dismissed because of clerical errors" 234,00 results...go to the 8th result..."at least 83 DWI cases have been thrown out in North Carolina by New Hanover County district court judges after most of the county’s 11 magistrate judges failed to include a required form in their files"
Again, no difference, the letter of the law must be followed, period...
And the fifth result discusses the relationship between God and liberals in politics. The search results don't have anything to do with your point. If they did, you would supply me with the names and case numbers. Most clerical errors in law are related to warrants or mistakes in court paperwork that are typically fixed. What you are describing is paper work that was never submitted. It seems like right now we are walking away from the issue of the income tax's constitutionality.
Unless you are arguing that some states didn't send in paperwork approving the 16th amendment...which you won't be able to back up since its simply untrue. But even then, it would be an issue for states and Congress to argue, and until then the law would still stand.
@SadegoGG You reveal your authoritarianism. Incorrect. This is no longer an issue between Congress & the States, both parties have failed their duties to follow our Constitution. Since we created both, we can change or abolish them at our discretion. Any "laws" that do not follow or is congruent with the aforementioned Constitution, are null & void...there are no exceptions, there is no need for a Supreme Court decision or any "discussion" needed for us to weld authority we already possess.
How is an amendment to the Constitution not an issue between Congress and the States? Politicians today have nothing to do with it. The 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 by Philander Knox. He reviewed your concern, took it into consideration, made a decision, not a single state who approved the amendment complained about the decision, not a single Congressman has complained about the decision, and therefore the 16th amendment is a part of our Constitution.
@SadegoGG 1st you have not proven it was Constitutionally Ratified. 2nd all the court cases you referenced are immaterial, sadly. Courts cannot hear these cases due to the inherent conflict of interest. They are not impartial nor separate, they are created & controlled by our States legislators and Congress. Taking things out of history, piecemeal serves neither history, the facts or We The People. Review the written protests of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, or Congressman, Louis T. McFadden,
So your entire theory is built on the premise that all the judges I have referenced you to are being bought out by state legislatures and Congress? Isn't it the state legislatures you are arguing that were against the 16th amendment from being ratified...even though they haven't come out and said that Knox made an error in calling for ratification anyways?
@SadegoGG Or any of the multitude of opponents of the Federal Reserve from 1913 through the murder of Congressman McFadden (1936) or the subsequent "deaths" of Congressman Larry P. McDonald (1983), Senators Heinz & Towers (1991).
The Federal Reserve & the 16th A go hand in hand....they are inseparable...This is not conspiracy but historical fact.
Review Wilson's own words after he realized what he had done by signing the Fed Act into law.
The federal reserve is a private banking system, and the income tax is a federal tax. They are not the same. They are separate. The only thing similar about them is they were both rectified in 1913.
@SadegoGG ""I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.... 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, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
@SadegoGG Then you are the fluoridated idiot I originally suspected you to be...insult intended...The Federal Reserve & the 16th A are inseparable...One does not go without the other....If the Federal Reserve was not "enacted" then the 16th A becomes a moot...can't have one without the other...This public discussion is not limited by your intentional misinformation and dare I say...DISINFORMATION...on this subject.
You have not proven the 16th a was ever constitutionally ratified...please do so
@SadegoGG Declarative statements nor court decisions prove your position. As I've already established and presented facts you've failed to even admit exist...thankfully all whom read our interactions will see these truths...you've failed...good day..
I provided you with a thorough debunk of the false premise that the income tax was never properly ratified. Since then you haven't asked anything that is relevant.
Please ask more questions. However, make sure they are on point. If you ask something about the federal reserve or documents not being submitted in DUI cases you are discussing matter that are irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the federal income tax.
@SadegoGG Knox had no granted authority to decide anything. Or "review my concerns". His only legal and constitutional move would to have submitted requests to the States for clarification of their intent or "blunders".
No decision occurs in a vacuum. Here, you'd have others believe he was "just and correct", when clearly he expanded his role & authority, expressly forbidden by our Constitution...wake up please...
And just because his actions are almost 100 yrs removed doesn't change it.
“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--
advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted.
Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986),
we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable).
Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required.
(Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)
Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different
“The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify.
But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment.
But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.
But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution
has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State
were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment: “Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998). “As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . .”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den.
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986);
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985);
United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.
The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
@SadegoGG Wow, another Disinfo Agent. You must be one of Charlotte Iserbyt's "Dumbed Down Americans" to even quote IRS policy here. They have no standing or authorization to give legal opinions, nor do they have the power to create law. Their "policy" as you've stated it, is just that, their policy, not law...Only Congress has been granted such authority, to create law. Sadly, you cannot see the your errors, it would not be called the 16th A if it was part of our original Constitution.
Can you please clarify what you are talking about? Are you trying to argue that the founding fathers never intended for there to be an income tax? Are you trying to claim that the IRS Code is not law?
I have already well proved the 16th Amendment was indeed properly ratified to you. If you would like to attempt to debunk my position you would be the first person I have ever seen to attempt to do it. For the most part I referred to Supreme Court cases.
@SadegoGG Yep. They allowed for taxes to be collected but it was limited to individuals that derived their monies from non-labored endeavors such as civil servants in DC, foreigners living here and for that collection of taxes to be equally apportioned among the States, not the citizens of said States. Big difference. The implementation of this was consistent with said understanding, up until 1953! Whereby Congress went beyond their granted authority & through "policy" changed definitions.
Can you be more specific as of why you think American citizens cannot be taxed? Are you taking the 10th amendment approach, 14th amendment approach, fed government can only tax states approach, or the IRS definition of the United States approach? If you want me to focus on any of those specifically, I would be more than happy to do so. I will just go on to answer the most broad tax protester position, regarding who is eligible for the income tax under IRS Code.
@SadegoGG 1st every American citizen can be taxed. If you abdicate your citizenship of the state you were born in and accept the federal "citizenship", as per the 14th A...you are obligated by any and all statutes, policies, etc that the federal gov't so wishes to decree..How did our nation survive before 1913? By taxing resident aliens & tariffs & corporate profits (up to 60%).
Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax, there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for the tax (and must use the word “liable”). However, that is not what the law requires.
In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual,
or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
As explained in the regulations: “Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”
Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t.
@SadegoGG Please try to keep up with me...IRS Code is not law, nor does it carry the force of law. The only body that was granted such power is our Congress (See Constitution). When Congress "delegates" their sworn duty to some other agency, group or individual (not duly elected by "We the People") they are in direct violation of their granted powers. They cannot expand or negate or change their duties, unless they ask us using Article V. Since they have never done so, any "code" is moot.
@SadegoGG Please do not attempt to bring in the "necessary & proper" clause, this clause has been intentionally misinterpreted even today where Congress does nothing. Not what was intended. They cannot grant any agency or individual authority to create law...again...only they can do so...
If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.
In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on unpaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that: “The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation....”
Also, I.R.C. section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return “shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”
The words “shall ... pay” certainly look like an obligation to pay, and the Supreme Court has held that the United States
@SadegoGG Again, the "supreme court" is not the ultimate arbiter of our government or it's duties, we the people are...we always have been and seriously here, ppl are finally waking up to the corruption...Congress created any and all courts except this one...and Congress can...at any given moment, defund any and all Supreme Court monies...with this in mind, whom does the Supreme Court serve then? Congress..not we the people...
Congress can only increase Supreme Court justices pay, they can never decrease pay.,,honestly you should have learned that in a high school politics class.
@SadegoGG Good gracious, read Article III Section 1 please: Wait here it is:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
@SadegoGG You've got that exactly backwards on what you think I said, not what I actually said. Congress controls our courts, period. The Courts are an extension of the will of Congress. Yes they can reduce the pay of Supreme Court justices, one at a time, as they retire or die, any future appointees could be paid $1 annually. Congress can eliminate any and other courts they so desire. All Constitutional. So when the SC decides something, it's at the behest of the will of Congress.
So your argument is that even though Congress can't decrease the pay for a Supreme Court justice (Same with inferior court justices), that Supreme Court justice can be bought out by Congress if Congress tells that Justice that his successor will not be payed as much as him? That doesn't make much sense to me. Moreover, Congress can only dissolve inferior federal courts. But you have to remember, Congressmen are elected and if they do something so stupid won't be reelected.
@SadegoGG Again, assumptions that are invalid. I never stated that Congress would even discuss pay, perks or benefits with any prospective SC Jurist. If Congress removes all funds for the SC and/or it's operations, excepting their pay, how does the SC actually hear cases or write opinions if they don't have pens & paper? There's not constitutional requirement that Congress provide anything but their salary...look up the history of the SC & the conditions they worked under for 80+ yrs.
@SadegoGG Have I provided you with a copy of our Constitution yet? Only Congress can make laws, not the Supreme Court nor any created governmental agency...
The Supreme Court hasn't created any laws. They simply interpreted the laws, and disagreed with you. Its natural for someone who has no law background who watched a couple of documentaries about how corrupt the government and financial system is to want to have an excuse for your failure to secure financial independence for yourself and your family. Why don't you go take a political science course or some law courses so you can look back and see how stupid your position is?
@SadegoGG ROFL, how'd we get to my personal finances??? Oh, that's right, a red herring & personal ad hominem's win no arguments. I am, in fact, 6 classes away from a BA in Constitutional Law from a private Jesuit College. Your false argument "technique" cannot dissuade me from what our Constitution actually says or how the masses have been spoon fed false choices on how our system was designed and it's current manifestations that abrogate the actual intent of said founding document(s),
If you were really in any form of law program you would know the income tax is Constitutional. I have provided you with an extraordinary amount of evidence, but you keep rambling on about things that don't even apply. If you were really getting a degree, you would know the founding fathers always attended for it to be possible to have a federal income tax. You're a conspiracy theorist, and I outlined the typical method of 'thinking' for a conspiracy theorist.
@SadegoGG Clearly you are a disinfo agent, thanks for establishing your "credentials" for all to see...Your "red herrings" do not change the facts. Your attempts to re-write history will not fly here. Jefferson himself on Mar 4, 1805 warned against internal taxes (or income tax). "The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions...."
@SadegoGG "had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property..."
We only had external taxes (tariffs, etc) up until 1913...which paid for all governmental needs.
Even Madision admits Congress was not granted the authority to collect income taxes but that it should be the goal...
@SadegoGG Madison's own words "...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be
such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be
oppressive to our constituents." This is just like Obama claiming we must create a legal framework that will allow the gov't to indefinitely detain anyone he desires without charges or a trial...perfect slavery for us all.
We The PEOPLE did not grant our created gov't any such authority...and this isn't CT honey, it's fact.
Another example of the triumph of hope over reason, because there is absolutely no historical evidence for the belief that the founding fathers never intended to have a federal income tax.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises...” The only specific exemption is in Section 9, which prohibits taxes on exports.
In Hylton v. United States, the three justices who wrote opinions were unanimous in their view that the Congressional power to tax was a general (or “plenary”) power, the only exception being exports. Justice Chase stated that:
“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever,
and called by any other name. ... I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports...”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis added).
In the same case, Justice Paterson (who was a member of the Constitutional Convention) stated:
“It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Paterson; emphasis added).
@gerrilea1 “The Congress possess the power of taxing all taxable objects, without limitation, with the particular exception of a duty on exports.
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell; emphasis added).
In a later decision, the Supreme Court confirmed these conclusions, stating that:
“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications.
Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”
License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).
In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had stated that the Congressional power to tax would be “concurrent and coequal” with the power of the states to tax (Federalist #32) and the Supreme Court has agreed that “The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states....” Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937).
@SadegoGG Failure, I care not what the Federalist or the Anti-Federalist papers say, they were written prior to the ratification of the Constitution. That's a false argument presented by "modern professors" to indoctrinate the American people into believing they have no sovereign authority over our gov't. What did We The People (through our State legislatures) demand? The Bill of Rights! The constitution is meant to limit the authority of the federal govt. Review them please.
I was providing you with ideologies of the founding fathers. And the federalist papers are a traditional place to go to see the ideas of the founding fathers, since the federalist papers are the essays that promoted the ratification of the United States Constitution. Don't forget I only referred to the federalist paper once, then I also used a Supreme Court case providing the same ideology. Moreover, the bill of rights has nothing to do with the 16th amendment.
@SadegoGG This is exactly why you cannot grasp what it is I've stated. You fall back on "tradition", it was tradition that women were barefoot & pregnant and property of their husbands. I've debated & argued against using Stare Decisis (case law) and Federalist paper as guidelines for interpretations of our Constitution with tenured Professors... and won... You've been forced into believing things that are not correct nor historically accurate. The 9th & 10th A's have everything to do with it.
@SadegoGG And you're continual quoting of these cases is immaterial. As written in the BoR's (the 9th & 10th A's) refute the usurpation the Federal Gov't has engaged in, using it's courts to expand it's authority beyond the original intents. Then convincing "we the people" it's all proper and "legal"....dare not say "lawful"!
States were never barred from collecting any & all taxes they so desired. The BoR limits what those "taxes" can be on. As you so aptly quoted for us here.
What I have quoted are quotes interpretation of modern laws. The courts don't make new legislation, they analyze current legislation to identify its Constitutionality and the broadness the legislation may be executed by the executive branch. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the federal government has the same amount of depth of taxation as the states, except for a couple of cases I sourced where 10th amendment issue came up. Those cases have been reversed and don't pertain
See also, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 154 (1911). And, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, several states imposed taxes on professions, vocations, or employments. As explained by the Supreme Court:
“Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges.
@SadegoGG Now you've gone and done it, misrepresenting history again! This specific case deals with the privileges grants corporations. Since the State issues, for a limited time, corporations right to exist, this is called a privilege...not an unalienable right. Unalienable rights that each individual American is born with. Congress nor the Courts have any authority over these. Individuals are not and cannot be corporations. We know they are created fiction, nothing more.
As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case [301 U.S. 548 (1937)], such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation, which was an attribute of the sovereign power of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,
@SadegoGG State rights, I never argued against this. The state can do as it pleases, if they go to far, they will be booted out of office, forcibly if necessary...
and which was reserved to them by that instrument. As the present levy [imposed by Alabama on wages paid] has all the indicia of a tax, and is of a type traditional in the history of Anglo-American legislation, it is within state taxing power, and it is immaterial whether it is called an excise or by another name.”
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937).
If the states had the power to tax wages, salaries, and other incomes from employment, then the Congress of the United States had the same power.
There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism (i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government,
and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:
In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was explicitly overruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939).
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because
Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).
IF all this is true. Why is Wesley Snipes in jail?
Louie92801 4 weeks ago
frickadele 5 months ago
@frickadele Ur saying that fire protection by the government equals socialism? So basically any kind of state intervention equals to socialism to you. LOL your an idiot
DIZamudio 3 months ago
@DIZamudio Yuri Maltzev defines any government(small or big) as socialistic in its nature because socialism is defined as government control. So fire protection by the government is socialism, but the government intervening in that manner may not be considered a socialistic government
richiespice10 1 month ago
When the Czar was sucker punched/overthrown,
the people of Russia were overthrown at that Same time.
Because the seat of power... Controls the population...
Not guns. Guns only protect you from a stranger or
crazed neighbor/dog ...who wants to hurt you....because
calling the cops would be too late to save your ass.
Did guns, in the USA...stop the overthrow of the
Unpatriot Act or poisons in the water/food...
or the money that's continuing to be stolen from the US
people? Nah! Sue the crooks.
frickadele 5 months ago
frickadele 5 months ago
HOW DARE HE NOT CALL JORDAN MAXWELLS NAME.
kdpflanders1 5 months ago
This country is going to hell in a handbasket if we don't step it up. So many of you blindly deny the existence of the NWO and their Globalist agenda. OPEN YOUR EYES! Already our country has been plauged by conformity. The government is already taking our money by illegal means. If you disagree, then you have serious problems.
moastytoasty54 5 months ago
Empty false arguments...you've provided proof that our "independent judiciary" is anything but...it's a meaningless argument to state that we'd be laughed out of any courtroom...meaningless emotional drivel...
gerrilea1 8 months ago
Does Red Beckman even know that the 16th was ratified on feb, 3, 1913.
sweetheart2109 8 months ago
iTS Americas loss that socialism has become such a negative word. Without Socialism we in Europe would be far worse off, although neoliberalism is doing its best to send us back to the dark ages.
foofkanon 9 months ago
at 11:26 there is a Starbucks logo on a screen.
What is that all about Alex? You talk about "corporatocracy" -- the take over of America by banks and corporations. And yet there is a Starbucks logo on your screen.
Is that product placement? Are you on Starbucks' payroll? Is that your corporate sponsor? Have you been bought off, Alex? Are you a corporate stooge?
Hmmmmm. I question the truth of what you say.
schtooch 9 months ago
Alex, it's not "socialist health care" when provate insurance companies drafted the bill and get the profit! Private sector profitting from government co-operatiion is FASCISM!
And I do think real public (socialist as you would call it) health care is a good thing. But then, it's your loss in America if you don't want it.
Aurinkohirvi 9 months ago
I agree with a man AJ interviews months ago who disagreed that our gun rights were that important. I don't give a fuck. I love my guns but if they are gone I'll fight with my kitchen knives a brick or a pitch fork. Where there is a will there is a way.
Gnostic279 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People who believe Alex Jones & his theories are just like those who believed Harold Camping (the rapture is going to happen May 21 . 2011)
You idiots are one in the same
Wake Up -Remove your tin foil hat -
Alex Jones is your Harold Camping
pffpfpppffff 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People who believe Alex Jones & his theories are just like those who believed Harold Camping (the rapture is going to happen May 21 . 2011).......You idiots are one in the same.......Alex Jones is your Harold Camping.
CreepyFukinCrawl 9 months ago
@lookat2011
Take it to the courts since your argument is apparently so strong.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
How come Alex Jones never mentions Eustace Mullins ?
hablerz 9 months ago
henry kissarsenger wants to shut down the internet. over my cold dead hands, its the greatest weapon we've got.
rhisiartvon 9 months ago
If Facist Communist,think they can steal the revolution they got another thing coming!
crypter27 9 months ago
The Tea Party isn't going to bring freedom. They may bring less tranny, but certainly not freedom. The only way to truely have freedom is to have anarchy. I know the american sheeple arn't ready for that.
twn5858 9 months ago
Jesus AJ, shut the fuck up and let this guy speak.
prussell66 9 months ago
The tentacles of government have reached into every aspect of our lives. Now that gas prices are so high, they may tax our bare feet for walking too far next (since many cannot afford shoes). Only the bankers/corporations/foreign governments (AIPAC)/military industrial complex and their lobbys are recognized because they pay for the political campaigns of these charlatans we call the Congress and Senate. We have massive taxation with no representation as individuals. And I for one am sick of it!
rross27 9 months ago
United States v SadegoGG, 98 F. 96d 69, 82 (69th Cir 1236) SadegoGG has no life.
tim1fast22 9 months ago
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh uhhhhhhhhh
robpaul82 9 months ago
everyone blames,and hopes governments wil save them but governments in any western country sold the comanding heights long time ago,oil factories,metals,banks,energy.the free market (the stock market controls the price of oil,food,metals,clothes,finance.so you see they control the economy all the government can do is wacth and pretend like they have power but really they just stand on the sideline just like you and me wacthing and praying hoping things will get better
cahaps 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
go to: kip6 (dot) b l o g s p o t (dot) c o m AND watch some interesting documentarys, and PLEASE share this simple and easy to use blog with your friends who might want to educate themselfs.... enjoy :-)
legnuci 9 months ago
I wonder if he has a brother named BLUE?? or a sister named PINK??
PARAPOUNARI 9 months ago
@PARAPOUNARI Negative.
trueredexe 9 months ago
@chopper63100
A patriot doesn't lie to people and say the 16th amendment wasn't ratified.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG You seriously are a lost puppy... show me where there's proof the 16th A was actually ratified and maybe I won't write you off as a fluoridated idiot... Do some historical research...or better yet take 3 minutes and do a simple google search for the multitude of books written that prove it was not...
A real patriot will tell the truth, if you have evidence to the contrary present it or go back to your parents basement and hide like the child you are...
gerrilea1 9 months ago in playlist 3
@gerrilea1
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s),
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.
According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U. S. House of Representatives, the dates of ratification by the states were (chronologically):
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911;
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986): “Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.)
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Key term here "income". Income is not the same thing as wages. Income is monies earned without labor, ie. interest, captial gains, etc. Wages are not synonymous with income. See also, Mark Eisner vs. Myrtle H. Macomber 252 US 189: "Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says that “gross income” (which is the starting point for determining “taxable income”) means “all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items....”
Sometimes the claim is that “compensation for services” is not the same as “wages.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Sometimes the claim is that “wages” are not the same as “gain” or “profit.” (See the discussion below on the claim that wages represent an equal, nontaxable exchange of labor for money.) Sometimes the claim is something else. Regardless of the rationale, the result is always the same: Wages are income.
Consider these statements by the United States Supreme Court:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”
Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913). “There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”
C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945). “Wages usually are income ....”
Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “[T]he premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. (Citation omitted.) Since the gain would have been income, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987), (plurality opinion of Justice Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Stevens, Blackmun concurring in the result; footnote omitted).
“The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert ‘the full measure of its taxing power,’ [citation omitted] and to bring within the definition of income any ‘accessio[n] to wealth.’ [citation omitted] There is no dispute that the settlement awards in this case [for ‘back wages’ to compensate for sex discrimination] would constitute gross income within the reach of 61(a).”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992). Later in the same opinion, the Supreme Court referred to the compensation received by the taxpayers as “the wages properly due them - wages that, if paid in the ordinary course, would have been fully taxable.” 504 U.S. at 241. “It [I.R.C. section 104, relating to compensation for personal injuries] also excludes from taxation those damages that substitute, say,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
for lost wages, which would have been taxed had the victim earned them.”
O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996). “Even if we suppose that strike benefits are made to compensate in a sense for the loss of wages, the principle of payments in compensation does not apply because the thing compensated for, the wages, had they been received, would have been included in gross income.”
United States v. Kaiser, 363 U.S. 299, 311 (1960).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek’ s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.”
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 204 (1991), (emphasis added).
Then there are the decisions of the Circuit Courts:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”
United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990). “In our view, petitioner’s wages are taxable as gross income...”
Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff’g 82 T.C. 766 (1984);
“Wages are taxable income,” and arguments to the contrary are ‘“patently frivolous.’”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-474; ; Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986). “Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional.”
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), citing United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984);
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
“Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant’s entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable.”
United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal failures to file affirmed). “[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994). “Furthermore, § 61(a) of the Code defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived, including . . . compensation for services.’
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
In sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term ‘income’ includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered. Taxpayers’ argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous.”
Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982), affirming T.C. Memo. 1981-506.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under the Tax Code, wages are income.”
Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986). “Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.”
United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “Irrefutably, wages earned in compensation for services are “income” pursuant to the federal tax laws.”
Boubel v. United States, 86 AFTR2d ¸2000-5123, No. 1:99-cv-380 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Tenn. 6/22/2000). “[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: ‘WAGES ARE INCOME.’ ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous....”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Hill v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 118, 120-22 (M.D. Tenn. 1984), (emphasis in original), (quoting United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984)). “As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (5) wages are not income....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “[P]laintiff’s claim that wages are not subject to taxation has been so soundly rejected that plaintiff has risked the imposition of sanctions by raising this argument at all.”
Fuselier v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 8 (2004). “[W]ages are indeed income subject to taxation.”
Hamzik v. United States, 92 AFTR 2d 2003-5743, KTC 2003-497 (Fed.Cls. 2003).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
“No reasonable person could seriously think that, for example, the revenue laws can be avoided, and the government’s tax collection efforts can be brought to a standstill by the contention that wages are not income.”
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 56 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280 (complaints dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing frivolous actions “brought in bad faith”).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
See also, Wilson v. United States, 412 F.2d 694, 695 (1st Cir. 1969); Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984); Commissioner v. Mendel, 351 F.2d 580, 582 (4th Cir. 1965); Simmons v. United States, 308 F.2d (4th Cir. 1962); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Burton, 737 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1984); Capps v. Eggers, 782 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1986); Sizemore v. United States, 797 F.2d 268, 271 (6th Cir. 1986);
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Woodall, 255 F.2d 370, 372 (10th Cir. 1958), cert. den. 358 U.S. 824 (1958); Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir. 1984); Sauers v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 64, 66 (3d Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-367; Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985);
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11th Cir. 1985); Waters v. Commissioner, 764 F.2d 1389, 1389 (11th Cir. 1985); Knighten v. Commissioner, 702 F.2d 59, 60 (5th Cir. 1983).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Key term here, "similar blunders"...who are you to claim the "mistakes" were mistakes???? The "letter of the law" is again, "the letter of the law". If a police officer quotes the wrong statute that he/she is attempting to bring charges under, their error is grounds for any and all charges to be dismissed. Those "clerical errors" are the same, making it null & void. This is settled law. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
As I described, the Secretary of State Knox took the small differences into consideration. States and senators have not come out and complained about Knox's position. If a Constitutional Amendment's validity is going to be questioned, its up for the state legislatures and Senators to debate about and resolve the issue. Its clear the states were in support of the 16th amendment, and were not taken out of context.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Mr. Knox was never granted such authority to decide anything. His only legal action he must have undertaken would be to request clarification from the States that had those "clerical errors" or "blunders". Herein lays the biggest swindle in human history. A public servant taking it upon himself to decide something he never had any granted powers to do. The Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, Congress cannot "define" anything in the Constitution, only through Article V can they.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Now, if a cop gives you a ticket and, lets say, provides you with the wrong statute number. The judge will call the cop up and ask for the offense then make an administrative amendment fixing the mistake. You have been watching too many crime shows on television if you think you can completely get out of legal troubles for a small error in a statute. Can you name some judges and the case numbers that have ruled in favor of the position you have advocated regarding statutes?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG You sir have never been in court then. I personally have had "violations" dismissed for exactly that reason. And you're wrong on the "judge will call the cop up and ask then make an administrative amendment fixing the mistake"...The Judge does not have that authority. Only the officer whom brought the charges or the Prosecuting Attorney can...please review our Constitution. Administrative decisions are a clever "run-a-around" of our Constitution. They hold no authority or power.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Seriously you have no clue, do one simple google search with the term, "how many criminals get charges dismissed because of clerical errors" 234,00 results...go to the 8th result..."at least 83 DWI cases have been thrown out in North Carolina by New Hanover County district court judges after most of the county’s 11 magistrate judges failed to include a required form in their files"
Again, no difference, the letter of the law must be followed, period...
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
And the fifth result discusses the relationship between God and liberals in politics. The search results don't have anything to do with your point. If they did, you would supply me with the names and case numbers. Most clerical errors in law are related to warrants or mistakes in court paperwork that are typically fixed. What you are describing is paper work that was never submitted. It seems like right now we are walking away from the issue of the income tax's constitutionality.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Unless you are arguing that some states didn't send in paperwork approving the 16th amendment...which you won't be able to back up since its simply untrue. But even then, it would be an issue for states and Congress to argue, and until then the law would still stand.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG You reveal your authoritarianism. Incorrect. This is no longer an issue between Congress & the States, both parties have failed their duties to follow our Constitution. Since we created both, we can change or abolish them at our discretion. Any "laws" that do not follow or is congruent with the aforementioned Constitution, are null & void...there are no exceptions, there is no need for a Supreme Court decision or any "discussion" needed for us to weld authority we already possess.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
How is an amendment to the Constitution not an issue between Congress and the States? Politicians today have nothing to do with it. The 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 by Philander Knox. He reviewed your concern, took it into consideration, made a decision, not a single state who approved the amendment complained about the decision, not a single Congressman has complained about the decision, and therefore the 16th amendment is a part of our Constitution.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG 1st you have not proven it was Constitutionally Ratified. 2nd all the court cases you referenced are immaterial, sadly. Courts cannot hear these cases due to the inherent conflict of interest. They are not impartial nor separate, they are created & controlled by our States legislators and Congress. Taking things out of history, piecemeal serves neither history, the facts or We The People. Review the written protests of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, or Congressman, Louis T. McFadden,
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
So your entire theory is built on the premise that all the judges I have referenced you to are being bought out by state legislatures and Congress? Isn't it the state legislatures you are arguing that were against the 16th amendment from being ratified...even though they haven't come out and said that Knox made an error in calling for ratification anyways?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Or any of the multitude of opponents of the Federal Reserve from 1913 through the murder of Congressman McFadden (1936) or the subsequent "deaths" of Congressman Larry P. McDonald (1983), Senators Heinz & Towers (1991).
The Federal Reserve & the 16th A go hand in hand....they are inseparable...This is not conspiracy but historical fact.
Review Wilson's own words after he realized what he had done by signing the Fed Act into law.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
The federal reserve is a private banking system, and the income tax is a federal tax. They are not the same. They are separate. The only thing similar about them is they were both rectified in 1913.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG ""I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.... 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, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
I thought we were talking about the 16th amendment and the income tax? Again, you're posting things that are irrelevant.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Then you are the fluoridated idiot I originally suspected you to be...insult intended...The Federal Reserve & the 16th A are inseparable...One does not go without the other....If the Federal Reserve was not "enacted" then the 16th A becomes a moot...can't have one without the other...This public discussion is not limited by your intentional misinformation and dare I say...DISINFORMATION...on this subject.
You have not proven the 16th a was ever constitutionally ratified...please do so
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Declarative statements nor court decisions prove your position. As I've already established and presented facts you've failed to even admit exist...thankfully all whom read our interactions will see these truths...you've failed...good day..
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
I provided you with a thorough debunk of the false premise that the income tax was never properly ratified. Since then you haven't asked anything that is relevant.
Please ask more questions. However, make sure they are on point. If you ask something about the federal reserve or documents not being submitted in DUI cases you are discussing matter that are irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the federal income tax.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Knox had no granted authority to decide anything. Or "review my concerns". His only legal and constitutional move would to have submitted requests to the States for clarification of their intent or "blunders".
No decision occurs in a vacuum. Here, you'd have others believe he was "just and correct", when clearly he expanded his role & authority, expressly forbidden by our Constitution...wake up please...
And just because his actions are almost 100 yrs removed doesn't change it.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Knox had no authority to decide anything?
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922)
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
Moreover, who do you think is responsible for officially promulgating Constitutional Amendments if its not the Secretary of State?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986),
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
(Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)
Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
constitutional amendment:
“The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136-137 (1922).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment: “Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998). “As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . .”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986);
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985);
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Wow, another Disinfo Agent. You must be one of Charlotte Iserbyt's "Dumbed Down Americans" to even quote IRS policy here. They have no standing or authorization to give legal opinions, nor do they have the power to create law. Their "policy" as you've stated it, is just that, their policy, not law...Only Congress has been granted such authority, to create law. Sadly, you cannot see the your errors, it would not be called the 16th A if it was part of our original Constitution.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Can you please clarify what you are talking about? Are you trying to argue that the founding fathers never intended for there to be an income tax? Are you trying to claim that the IRS Code is not law?
I have already well proved the 16th Amendment was indeed properly ratified to you. If you would like to attempt to debunk my position you would be the first person I have ever seen to attempt to do it. For the most part I referred to Supreme Court cases.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Yep. They allowed for taxes to be collected but it was limited to individuals that derived their monies from non-labored endeavors such as civil servants in DC, foreigners living here and for that collection of taxes to be equally apportioned among the States, not the citizens of said States. Big difference. The implementation of this was consistent with said understanding, up until 1953! Whereby Congress went beyond their granted authority & through "policy" changed definitions.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Can you be more specific as of why you think American citizens cannot be taxed? Are you taking the 10th amendment approach, 14th amendment approach, fed government can only tax states approach, or the IRS definition of the United States approach? If you want me to focus on any of those specifically, I would be more than happy to do so. I will just go on to answer the most broad tax protester position, regarding who is eligible for the income tax under IRS Code.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG 1st every American citizen can be taxed. If you abdicate your citizenship of the state you were born in and accept the federal "citizenship", as per the 14th A...you are obligated by any and all statutes, policies, etc that the federal gov't so wishes to decree..How did our nation survive before 1913? By taxing resident aliens & tariffs & corporate profits (up to 60%).
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax, there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for the tax (and must use the word “liable”). However, that is not what the law requires.
In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG What law are you referring to? Surely not the 16th A. What law please?
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
As explained in the regulations: “Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”
Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Please try to keep up with me...IRS Code is not law, nor does it carry the force of law. The only body that was granted such power is our Congress (See Constitution). When Congress "delegates" their sworn duty to some other agency, group or individual (not duly elected by "We the People") they are in direct violation of their granted powers. They cannot expand or negate or change their duties, unless they ask us using Article V. Since they have never done so, any "code" is moot.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Please do not attempt to bring in the "necessary & proper" clause, this clause has been intentionally misinterpreted even today where Congress does nothing. Not what was intended. They cannot grant any agency or individual authority to create law...again...only they can do so...
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.
In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on unpaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that: “The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation....”
U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Failure to read, income is not the same as wages...
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Also, I.R.C. section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return “shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”
The words “shall ... pay” certainly look like an obligation to pay, and the Supreme Court has held that the United States
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Again, the "supreme court" is not the ultimate arbiter of our government or it's duties, we the people are...we always have been and seriously here, ppl are finally waking up to the corruption...Congress created any and all courts except this one...and Congress can...at any given moment, defund any and all Supreme Court monies...with this in mind, whom does the Supreme Court serve then? Congress..not we the people...
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Congress can only increase Supreme Court justices pay, they can never decrease pay.,,honestly you should have learned that in a high school politics class.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Good gracious, read Article III Section 1 please: Wait here it is:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Yes, and that's what I told you. But you said their pay can be lowered by Congress if they don't do what Congress wants them to do.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG You've got that exactly backwards on what you think I said, not what I actually said. Congress controls our courts, period. The Courts are an extension of the will of Congress. Yes they can reduce the pay of Supreme Court justices, one at a time, as they retire or die, any future appointees could be paid $1 annually. Congress can eliminate any and other courts they so desire. All Constitutional. So when the SC decides something, it's at the behest of the will of Congress.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
So your argument is that even though Congress can't decrease the pay for a Supreme Court justice (Same with inferior court justices), that Supreme Court justice can be bought out by Congress if Congress tells that Justice that his successor will not be payed as much as him? That doesn't make much sense to me. Moreover, Congress can only dissolve inferior federal courts. But you have to remember, Congressmen are elected and if they do something so stupid won't be reelected.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Again, assumptions that are invalid. I never stated that Congress would even discuss pay, perks or benefits with any prospective SC Jurist. If Congress removes all funds for the SC and/or it's operations, excepting their pay, how does the SC actually hear cases or write opinions if they don't have pens & paper? There's not constitutional requirement that Congress provide anything but their salary...look up the history of the SC & the conditions they worked under for 80+ yrs.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
By the way, have I provided you with the evidence IRS Code is law, yet?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Have I provided you with a copy of our Constitution yet? Only Congress can make laws, not the Supreme Court nor any created governmental agency...
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
The Supreme Court hasn't created any laws. They simply interpreted the laws, and disagreed with you. Its natural for someone who has no law background who watched a couple of documentaries about how corrupt the government and financial system is to want to have an excuse for your failure to secure financial independence for yourself and your family. Why don't you go take a political science course or some law courses so you can look back and see how stupid your position is?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG ROFL, how'd we get to my personal finances??? Oh, that's right, a red herring & personal ad hominem's win no arguments. I am, in fact, 6 classes away from a BA in Constitutional Law from a private Jesuit College. Your false argument "technique" cannot dissuade me from what our Constitution actually says or how the masses have been spoon fed false choices on how our system was designed and it's current manifestations that abrogate the actual intent of said founding document(s),
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
If you were really in any form of law program you would know the income tax is Constitutional. I have provided you with an extraordinary amount of evidence, but you keep rambling on about things that don't even apply. If you were really getting a degree, you would know the founding fathers always attended for it to be possible to have a federal income tax. You're a conspiracy theorist, and I outlined the typical method of 'thinking' for a conspiracy theorist.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Clearly you are a disinfo agent, thanks for establishing your "credentials" for all to see...Your "red herrings" do not change the facts. Your attempts to re-write history will not fly here. Jefferson himself on Mar 4, 1805 warned against internal taxes (or income tax). "The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions...."
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@SadegoGG "had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property..."
We only had external taxes (tariffs, etc) up until 1913...which paid for all governmental needs.
Even Madision admits Congress was not granted the authority to collect income taxes but that it should be the goal...
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Madison's own words "...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be
such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be
oppressive to our constituents." This is just like Obama claiming we must create a legal framework that will allow the gov't to indefinitely detain anyone he desires without charges or a trial...perfect slavery for us all.
We The PEOPLE did not grant our created gov't any such authority...and this isn't CT honey, it's fact.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Another example of the triumph of hope over reason, because there is absolutely no historical evidence for the belief that the founding fathers never intended to have a federal income tax.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises...” The only specific exemption is in Section 9, which prohibits taxes on exports.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
In Hylton v. United States, the three justices who wrote opinions were unanimous in their view that the Congressional power to tax was a general (or “plenary”) power, the only exception being exports. Justice Chase stated that:
“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
and called by any other name. ... I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports...”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis added).
In the same case, Justice Paterson (who was a member of the Constitutional Convention) stated:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
“It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Paterson; emphasis added).
And, finally, Justice Iredell stated:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1 “The Congress possess the power of taxing all taxable objects, without limitation, with the particular exception of a duty on exports.
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell; emphasis added).
In a later decision, the Supreme Court confirmed these conclusions, stating that:
“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”
License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had stated that the Congressional power to tax would be “concurrent and coequal” with the power of the states to tax (Federalist #32) and the Supreme Court has agreed that “The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states....” Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Failure, I care not what the Federalist or the Anti-Federalist papers say, they were written prior to the ratification of the Constitution. That's a false argument presented by "modern professors" to indoctrinate the American people into believing they have no sovereign authority over our gov't. What did We The People (through our State legislatures) demand? The Bill of Rights! The constitution is meant to limit the authority of the federal govt. Review them please.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
I was providing you with ideologies of the founding fathers. And the federalist papers are a traditional place to go to see the ideas of the founding fathers, since the federalist papers are the essays that promoted the ratification of the United States Constitution. Don't forget I only referred to the federalist paper once, then I also used a Supreme Court case providing the same ideology. Moreover, the bill of rights has nothing to do with the 16th amendment.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG This is exactly why you cannot grasp what it is I've stated. You fall back on "tradition", it was tradition that women were barefoot & pregnant and property of their husbands. I've debated & argued against using Stare Decisis (case law) and Federalist paper as guidelines for interpretations of our Constitution with tenured Professors... and won... You've been forced into believing things that are not correct nor historically accurate. The 9th & 10th A's have everything to do with it.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Really, please provide me with transcripts with some of the conversations you won.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG And you're continual quoting of these cases is immaterial. As written in the BoR's (the 9th & 10th A's) refute the usurpation the Federal Gov't has engaged in, using it's courts to expand it's authority beyond the original intents. Then convincing "we the people" it's all proper and "legal"....dare not say "lawful"!
States were never barred from collecting any & all taxes they so desired. The BoR limits what those "taxes" can be on. As you so aptly quoted for us here.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
What I have quoted are quotes interpretation of modern laws. The courts don't make new legislation, they analyze current legislation to identify its Constitutionality and the broadness the legislation may be executed by the executive branch. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the federal government has the same amount of depth of taxation as the states, except for a couple of cases I sourced where 10th amendment issue came up. Those cases have been reversed and don't pertain
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
to tax protester arguments that average citizens are not liable for the income tax.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
See also, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 154 (1911). And, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, several states imposed taxes on professions, vocations, or employments. As explained by the Supreme Court:
“Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG Now you've gone and done it, misrepresenting history again! This specific case deals with the privileges grants corporations. Since the State issues, for a limited time, corporations right to exist, this is called a privilege...not an unalienable right. Unalienable rights that each individual American is born with. Congress nor the Courts have any authority over these. Individuals are not and cannot be corporations. We know they are created fiction, nothing more.
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Are you trying to argue the income tax doesn't apply to American citizens?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case [301 U.S. 548 (1937)], such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation, which was an attribute of the sovereign power of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG State rights, I never argued against this. The state can do as it pleases, if they go to far, they will be booted out of office, forcibly if necessary...
gerrilea1 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
and which was reserved to them by that instrument. As the present levy [imposed by Alabama on wages paid] has all the indicia of a tax, and is of a type traditional in the history of Anglo-American legislation, it is within state taxing power, and it is immaterial whether it is called an excise or by another name.”
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
If the states had the power to tax wages, salaries, and other incomes from employment, then the Congress of the United States had the same power.
There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism (i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:
In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was explicitly overruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939).
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@gerrilea1
Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).
SadegoGG 9 months ago