So, just like I said, it wasn't until the 16th Amendment was passed on February 3, 1913 that the government was "allowed" to tax incomes. I hope this clears up your confusion, but I think perhaps you just wanted a sparring partner.
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
@RetSquid No, as I said, taxation of incomes didn't even enter the minds of the founders. They had tariffs and import/export taxes on goods. You might as well be arguing that the founders supported a "tax" on people who look funny simply because you are interpreting the Constitution as an overbroad-all encompassing document, when the founders were all about limiting the federal government with specificity. Believe what you will.
I'll stick with the reality that the the power to tax was the main reason we have a Constitution and not Articles of Confederation.
What you are claiming is that the Founders screwed up when they wrote Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, and that every legislator, judge and executive since then has gotten it all wrong.
Exactly, it says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
So as long as direct taxes are apportioned, it's not an export, Congress can tax it.
“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)
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein directed to be taken.”
The 16th Amendment
(30 words that changed the course of our history):
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
“…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective Numbers…”
Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Maybe they would have let him say something critical of war-mongering had he been black?
In essence, what they are saying by cutting the feed on a ten-year-and-counting, white, Iraq war veteran is “NO FREE SPEECH FOR WHITES. ESPECIALLY WHITE SOLDIERS.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.
@RetSquid Actually, he knows and follows the Constitution better than all of the other candidates. In fact, he believes that if the Constitution doesn't specifically grant the federal government power to do something, then he won't support it. In essence, he is the ONLY true Constitutionalist.
But he also believes parts of the Constitution don't really exist/matter. such as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the 16th Amendement and his interpretation of the 13th Amendment is a little off.
@RetSquid Not really. We already can't maintain our borders because we are spread too thin across the world, much like the old Roman Empire before its demise. Why shouldn't we "withdraw into our borders"? What other nation has military bases spread all around the globe, and why? It is to maintain our world police status, that's why.
And no, he is fully aware of the entire Constitution, my friend, and he most definitely believes it matters.
Our isolationism helped lead to WWII, and our lack of preparation for it. Paul believes the 16th Amendment and the 13th Amendment are in conflict, that income tax is the same thing as slavery. That may be his opinion, but it is legally wrong.
@RetSquid And our over-agressive nature will lead to WWIII if not put in check. What's worse, the next one will be fought with nuclear weapons.
"income tax is the same thing as slavery"
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but income tax is indeed outside the scope of the Constitution. It was introduced unconstitutionally in 1913. It's legally wrong to have implemented such a practice since the federal government isn't specifically granted that power. That is reserved for the states.
I guess you are in the same Constitutionally ignorant frame of mind as Paul. There are only two limits on Congress' power to tax, direct taxes (on real estate for example) have to be apportioned and exports cannot be taxed. The 16th Amendment was ratified by the States, so an unapportioned income tax is Constitutional, by definition.
@RetSquid Not at all, my friend, though I thank you for the insult. Here you are, an internet warrior, claiming to be of superior schooling in the Constitution than Ron Paul and myself, even though I explained what a strict Constitutionalist means. Like I said before, personal income tax was NOT part of the Constitution. We were not founded under a system of income taxation, and the federal gov was not granted that specific power to implement such a tax.
I guess you and Paul are butting heads against over 200 years of settled law. Congress has always had the power to tax incomes. The Constitution specifically authorizes an non-apportioned income tax.
@RetSquid Yet unfortunately for you, it is your own lack of understanding that is the issue, not Ron Paul's or my own. You just need to do a bit more reading is all. You'll get there.
"200 years of settled law"
As I said, the federal income tax was established in 1913, hardly 200 years ago..
I was talking about since the beginning of the country, Congress could tax incomes.
"It is clear on the face of this text [16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,***AN AUTHORITY ALREADY POSSESSED AND NEVER QUESTIONED.*** “
@RetSquid Not so. Again, you are misinterpreting the Constitution by going beyond what it specifically says by claiming that the government can tax "anything it wishes". I suggest you read up on the historical events of the original Tea Party, what it was and why even a "tea tax" was so outrageous to the founders. They had absolutely no intention of allowing their actual incomes be taxed.
So the Founding Fathers screwed it up? Is that your claim? They speciically left two things out of the power to tax, and you think they should have put 'income' next to 'exports'? You are talking about taxation without representation, THAT is what the Boston tea party was about. You ARE represented now, so the excuse is not valid.
@RetSquid "So the Founding Fathers screwed it up? Is that your claim?"
This is going way over your head, I can tell. No, that was not my claim. I said you are screwing up the Constitution. Read more carefully in the future if you don't mind.
No, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to allow for anything to be taxed except exports, and direct taxes had to be direct, those are the ONLY limitations. If you think that's wrong then you obviously think the Founders screwed up the Constitution.
@RetSquid No, we've been over this. Simply rehashing what you've already posted doesn't change anything, my friend. Look, you are welcome to believe incorrectly if you so choose. It doesn't matter one whit to me as it won't change one aspect of my life. The founders had no intention of an income tax or a Fed for that matter.
"you obviously think the Founders screwed up the Constitution."
@RetSquid The fundamental issue here is whether or not you believe the federal government should act outside its authority even though the Constitution doesn't grant the power. You seem to be of the frame of mind that they can, while Ron Paul and myself see it differently. Of course, if you grant unlimited power to the fed, you get exactly the state of the nation that we are in right now.
Anyway, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, as internet arguments rarely change the mind.
The fundemental issue is that you and Paul are ignorant on the Constitution and the law...that is a major problem no matter who is in office.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
@RetSquid 1920's? lol, ok. i love all the idiots out there talking about foreign policy and how his is wrong. tell me....how is the current foreign policy in the last 50 years good? how's that working out for us?
@RetSquid when has interventionism? tell me, where in the constitution does it give us the right to intervene everywhere or anywhere in the world where we see fit? oh yeah, that's right, it DOESN'T. tell me, retired "squid," did you take an oath?
your channel indicates you "did 20." well that's wonderful. you are a product of the war machine. it gave you purpose i suppose. if put food on your table. nothing wrong with that. i was in the military as well, i'm not anti military. i'm anti militarism. the last war we officially won, and the last one we officially declared was WWII. since? every one of them has been unconstitutional. if you can't understand that, well, you swore an oath to it how many times?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can't authorize military actions that are not declared wars. It falls under the President's power as Commander in Chief, Congress can de-fund him anytime they wish.
Squid is a failtroll. Plain and simple.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
So, just like I said, it wasn't until the 16th Amendment was passed on February 3, 1913 that the government was "allowed" to tax incomes. I hope this clears up your confusion, but I think perhaps you just wanted a sparring partner.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Sorry wrong again:
"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid No, sorry troll. I posted what the Constitution says. All you did was post the same nonsense. Good day to you.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Right, and the Constitution refutes your claim that Congress cannot tax incomes.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid No, as I said, taxation of incomes didn't even enter the minds of the founders. They had tariffs and import/export taxes on goods. You might as well be arguing that the founders supported a "tax" on people who look funny simply because you are interpreting the Constitution as an overbroad-all encompassing document, when the founders were all about limiting the federal government with specificity. Believe what you will.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
I'll stick with the reality that the the power to tax was the main reason we have a Constitution and not Articles of Confederation.
What you are claiming is that the Founders screwed up when they wrote Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, and that every legislator, judge and executive since then has gotten it all wrong.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid And I'll stick to what the Constitution specifically says about the matter. Thanks.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Exactly, it says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
So as long as direct taxes are apportioned, it's not an export, Congress can tax it.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid No. There are limits to what can be taxed.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
“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)
RetSquid 1 month ago
Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein directed to be taken.”
The 16th Amendment
(30 words that changed the course of our history):
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Darkrift777 1 month ago
Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3:
“…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective Numbers…”
Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Darkrift777 1 month ago
Maybe they would have let him say something critical of war-mongering had he been black?
In essence, what they are saying by cutting the feed on a ten-year-and-counting, white, Iraq war veteran is “NO FREE SPEECH FOR WHITES. ESPECIALLY WHITE SOLDIERS.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.
Anti-racist is a code-Word for anti-White.
TheGenseric 1 month ago
I would vote for Ron Paul, except he does not know the law or Constitution and his isolationist policy is from the 1920s.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Actually, he knows and follows the Constitution better than all of the other candidates. In fact, he believes that if the Constitution doesn't specifically grant the federal government power to do something, then he won't support it. In essence, he is the ONLY true Constitutionalist.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
But he also believes parts of the Constitution don't really exist/matter. such as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the 16th Amendement and his interpretation of the 13th Amendment is a little off.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid As far as his "isolationist policy", do you honestly believe the role of the United States is "World Police"?
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Not being the World's Policeman (good thing) and withdrawing into our borders (bad) like he wishes are worlds apart.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Not really. We already can't maintain our borders because we are spread too thin across the world, much like the old Roman Empire before its demise. Why shouldn't we "withdraw into our borders"? What other nation has military bases spread all around the globe, and why? It is to maintain our world police status, that's why.
And no, he is fully aware of the entire Constitution, my friend, and he most definitely believes it matters.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Our isolationism helped lead to WWII, and our lack of preparation for it. Paul believes the 16th Amendment and the 13th Amendment are in conflict, that income tax is the same thing as slavery. That may be his opinion, but it is legally wrong.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid And our over-agressive nature will lead to WWIII if not put in check. What's worse, the next one will be fought with nuclear weapons.
"income tax is the same thing as slavery"
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but income tax is indeed outside the scope of the Constitution. It was introduced unconstitutionally in 1913. It's legally wrong to have implemented such a practice since the federal government isn't specifically granted that power. That is reserved for the states.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
I guess you are in the same Constitutionally ignorant frame of mind as Paul. There are only two limits on Congress' power to tax, direct taxes (on real estate for example) have to be apportioned and exports cannot be taxed. The 16th Amendment was ratified by the States, so an unapportioned income tax is Constitutional, by definition.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Not at all, my friend, though I thank you for the insult. Here you are, an internet warrior, claiming to be of superior schooling in the Constitution than Ron Paul and myself, even though I explained what a strict Constitutionalist means. Like I said before, personal income tax was NOT part of the Constitution. We were not founded under a system of income taxation, and the federal gov was not granted that specific power to implement such a tax.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
I guess you and Paul are butting heads against over 200 years of settled law. Congress has always had the power to tax incomes. The Constitution specifically authorizes an non-apportioned income tax.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Ignorance is not an insult, it is just a lack of knowledge.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Yet unfortunately for you, it is your own lack of understanding that is the issue, not Ron Paul's or my own. You just need to do a bit more reading is all. You'll get there.
"200 years of settled law"
As I said, the federal income tax was established in 1913, hardly 200 years ago..
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
I was talking about since the beginning of the country, Congress could tax incomes.
"It is clear on the face of this text [16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,***AN AUTHORITY ALREADY POSSESSED AND NEVER QUESTIONED.*** “
Brushaber v. UPRR Company
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid No, income tax didn't even enter into the minds of the founders.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Funny, they wrote the Constitution to allow income taxes.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid No, they didn't.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Yeah, they did, go read it. Congress can tax anything it wishes, with two exceptions, direct taxes must be apportioned and exports cannot be taxed.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Not so. Again, you are misinterpreting the Constitution by going beyond what it specifically says by claiming that the government can tax "anything it wishes". I suggest you read up on the historical events of the original Tea Party, what it was and why even a "tea tax" was so outrageous to the founders. They had absolutely no intention of allowing their actual incomes be taxed.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
So the Founding Fathers screwed it up? Is that your claim? They speciically left two things out of the power to tax, and you think they should have put 'income' next to 'exports'? You are talking about taxation without representation, THAT is what the Boston tea party was about. You ARE represented now, so the excuse is not valid.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid "So the Founding Fathers screwed it up? Is that your claim?"
This is going way over your head, I can tell. No, that was not my claim. I said you are screwing up the Constitution. Read more carefully in the future if you don't mind.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
No, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to allow for anything to be taxed except exports, and direct taxes had to be direct, those are the ONLY limitations. If you think that's wrong then you obviously think the Founders screwed up the Constitution.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid No, we've been over this. Simply rehashing what you've already posted doesn't change anything, my friend. Look, you are welcome to believe incorrectly if you so choose. It doesn't matter one whit to me as it won't change one aspect of my life. The founders had no intention of an income tax or a Fed for that matter.
"you obviously think the Founders screwed up the Constitution."
Are you a troll? I think perhaps you are.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
Well, I quoted the Constitution to prove you wrong, what have you got to counter that?
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid The fundamental issue here is whether or not you believe the federal government should act outside its authority even though the Constitution doesn't grant the power. You seem to be of the frame of mind that they can, while Ron Paul and myself see it differently. Of course, if you grant unlimited power to the fed, you get exactly the state of the nation that we are in right now.
Anyway, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, as internet arguments rarely change the mind.
Darkrift777 1 month ago
@Darkrift777
The fundemental issue is that you and Paul are ignorant on the Constitution and the law...that is a major problem no matter who is in office.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid 1920's? lol, ok. i love all the idiots out there talking about foreign policy and how his is wrong. tell me....how is the current foreign policy in the last 50 years good? how's that working out for us?
DoNotTread0nMe 1 month ago
@DoNotTread0nMe
When has isolationism ever helped the U.S.?
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid when has interventionism? tell me, where in the constitution does it give us the right to intervene everywhere or anywhere in the world where we see fit? oh yeah, that's right, it DOESN'T. tell me, retired "squid," did you take an oath?
DoNotTread0nMe 1 month ago
your channel indicates you "did 20." well that's wonderful. you are a product of the war machine. it gave you purpose i suppose. if put food on your table. nothing wrong with that. i was in the military as well, i'm not anti military. i'm anti militarism. the last war we officially won, and the last one we officially declared was WWII. since? every one of them has been unconstitutional. if you can't understand that, well, you swore an oath to it how many times?
DoNotTread0nMe 1 month ago
@DoNotTread0nMe
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can't authorize military actions that are not declared wars. It falls under the President's power as Commander in Chief, Congress can de-fund him anytime they wish.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@DoNotTread0nMe
The Constitution limits the Federal Government's actions with the States, not with other countries.
RetSquid 1 month ago