Author Topic: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified  (Read 53601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline southernmissouri2007

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98

Offline southernmissouri2007

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2011, 10:59:34 am »
I have heard Republicans talk about getting rid of the Sixteenth Amendment but are they serious if they got rid of the Income Tax would they just bring it back later also I have heard others on the Right Wing say they want to get rid of the Sixteenth Amendment too ?

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2011, 02:46:00 pm »

In a word?  NO, the 16th Amendment is not unconstitutional... please read further before lambasting me with replies about how you hate the income tax.

Legal principles are in play even with the U.S. Constitution.  The most important to consider FIRST is jurisdiction.  The federal government, created by the Constitution, is the foreign agent to the states and arbiter of interstate matters (such as making sure states are not taxing articles exported to each other, etc.).  It is NOT an all-powerful entity with purview over the states.  In essence, the states remain sovereign, though delegating certain authority over the federal government in order for the states to represented as one for foreign affairs.

Congress has ALWAYS had the power to tax income within its jurisdiction.

"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes"
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"... the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted."
Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

In other words, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new authority whatsoever.  The limited and plenary taxing power of Congress is noted in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and no where else.  No Amendment can grant a power that is unconstitutional anyway.

As I said, jurisdiction is key here.  If Congress has always been able to tax income... who exactly would be the target of such an imposition?  Might it be those engaged in matters concerning the function of the federal government as a foreign agent to the states?  If a foreign business wishes to do business in the U.S., they must utilize the services of the federal government and are thus subject to a tax upon the domestic income produced.  If a U.S. citizen contracts with a foreign entity and generates foreign income while residing abroad, they are also subject to a tax upon that income.

So, regardless of all the ratification arguments, the 16th Amendment does not affect the vast majority of Americans at all.  If you want to understand the 16th Amendment, read the Brushaber case online at FindLaw.com.  Follow up with other significant cases such as Doyle, Eisner, and Merchant's Loan and Trust.  However, never forget that the basic legal principles don't change.... jurisdiction is paramount.

The 16th Amendment and the income tax (as written) are 100% Constitutional.  An individual's lack of knowledge does not make these out to be something they are not.  However, ignorance has allowed the income tax to be applied incorrectly with proponents even using the 16th as justification... those proponents being equally ignorant.

Read a book... I have a great suggestion for one ;)


Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2011, 02:51:36 pm »
The hell it isn't...

Read on...

Just as Obama isn't a Constitutional President, William Hoawrd Taft isn't one either.  Cuz of this fact the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified.

16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2011, 03:05:10 pm »

16th Amendment improperly ratified.‏


This is a completely separate argument to whether or not it is Constitutional.  If it were properly ratified, would you argue that it is or is not Constitutional based on its wording?

The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation nor did it extend Congress' taxing authority to new or excepted subjects.  The Amendment itself, as written, is perfectly Constitutional.

Its ratification is a different animal, but if it were repealed due to an improper ratification process, what effect would you expect?  Congress has always had the power to tax income.  It would not somehow remove that ability.  The real-world effect would be that certain individuals and entities receiving a very particular type of income would no longer be paying what they would otherwise owe legitimately.  It would provide a loophole to those upon whom the tax actually was imposed.... that's not the average American living and working within the 50 states of the union.


Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2011, 03:13:20 pm »
The point is it's un-Constitutional.   ;)

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2011, 03:32:42 pm »

The point is it's un-Constitutional.   ;)


With regard to its ratification, possibly.

The problem with even bothering to argue this point is that it is used to argue against the imposition of the income tax upon the average American living and working within the 50 states of the union.  This is a specious argument and has no basis in law.  Those arguing to repeal the Amendment believe it will have an affect far different from reality.

Should the 16th be repealed today, the income tax would still exist and aside from some minor changes necessary to account for the lack of Congress' ability to collect taxes from income generated from the use of federal property by certain entities, it would make no difference with regard to the misapplication of the law upon the average American.

That's my point.  With regard to any discussion amongst average Americans, the 16th Amendment is a non-issue.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2011, 06:38:32 pm »

I highly recommend taking a listen to this episode of The Dave Champion Show for a quick and dirty on the 16th Amendment...

http://archives.davechampionshow.com/Champion_1_122210.mp3

Skip to 53mins in for a question from a listener directly on point.  He spends about 10mins on the subject.


However, in addition to that, it would be impossible to clearly and fully convey every aspect of knowledge that one would uncover over 6 years of research (which would be me) or especially almost 20 years of research (as the case would be for Dave Champion) in a few forum posts.  I would recommend diving in full throttle on this if you truly wish to understand tax law.  A great starting place, and a culmination of his 20 years of research from which you can source and vet for yourself, is "Income Tax: Shattering the Myths".  Every single question you would ever have about federal taxation and how it relates to you (or not, as is most likely the case) is answered within its pages... I promise.

Further, specious arguments about tax law and related concepts/statutes/amendments based on nothing more than what could be deemed common knowledge (or lack thereof) is rather pointless.  I cannot begin to count the number of times I've had an outright argument with someone who has never read a single word of tax law.  Their entire foundation is based on their assumptions, the equally ignorant statements of accountants and tax attorneys, and/or from IRS publications.  None of these sources are actual law.  Without actual research, one can never truly understand a thing.  The same is true for both the income tax and the 16th Amendment.  The Supreme Court has a plethora of jurisprudence on the subject following its [questionable] ratification and state very clearly what the intent of the amendment was.  Why so few Americans bother to simply read this information is beyond me.

Do yourself a favor, get the book.  Stop assuming.  Stop asking peers who have done just as much research on the subject (read: little to none).  Stop relying on those with a vested interest in the misapplication of the law for answers (CPA's, attorneys).  Stop assuming that just because everyone believes something that it must be true.  Become a researched and knowledgeable source of concrete fact and documented information... you won't be sorry.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2011, 10:06:48 am »
The 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified in that there were changes in the wording / meaning in different states... some states even amended the language and punctuation to get it passed, something THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO! There are at least 5 slightly different versions of the amendment that were ratified.

A bit of research on this will reveal the fraud... if I recall, the Oklahoma ratification is quite interesting... So NO, the 16th Amendment when seen in the spirit of our Constitution and by law, is not constitutional.

Oldyoti

"Whenever there is an interest and power to
do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not
less readily by a powerful and interested party
than by a powerful and interested prince."

~James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 1788

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2011, 02:41:00 pm »
Despite the common misunderstanding that the 16th allows (legalistically speaking) for the federal government to steal from Americans living and working within the 50 states of the union, it simply is not true.  Until the revised IRC of 1953 (when the BIR got their name changed to IRS), the use of W-4's with the resulting W-2's and W-9's with resulting 1099's was not prolific at all.  Following this revision, the IRS started a massive campaign to paper every business (regardless of what class into which they fell) with IRS publications that were, in a word, confusing to most.  Up until that point, they had little or no dealings with the federal tax agency.  In addition to papering businesses, the IRS got their dirty little hands into public accounting schools as well as those regarding tax law.

After a decade of this, the seed had been planted for the "fair share" nonsense and due to the ignorance of most people, they just accepted it.  The timing was important because you couldn't pull a scam like this when people actually pay attention and read the law.

What I'm saying is that the 16th did not confer any new power of taxation nor did it extend Congress' taxing authority to new or excepted subjects.  That's not my opinion... that's what the Supreme Court has said time and time again.  What this truth does not fix, however, is ignorance and misunderstanding.  Employers force employees to fill out W-4's on condition of employment.  There is no basis in law for this requirement... they just do.  Using that information, they then send a W-2 to the IRS at the end of the year claiming that ALL monies paid to the person in question is to be considered for calculating a tax under Subtitle A of the IRC.  This is a gross misapplication of statutory law and the regulations.  In that same vein, businesses demand, on condition of payment, that contractors fill out and sign a W-9 so that they can send in a 1099 at the end of the year.  This is even more of a crime because the rules are even more clear... the W-9 is to ONLY be filled out by a "U.S. person" who is in receivership for monies destined to a "foreign person".

The 16th did not create this farce at all.  Repealing it would have no effect whatsoever on the fraud.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2011, 03:05:35 pm »
The point is if you open a business and you choose not to deduct from your employees the Federal and State income part of your taxes while paying the SSI and Worker's Comp.  There is no law saying you have to just like there is no law saying you have to take vaccines.

Offline PeaceAndFreedom

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2011, 07:48:30 pm »
From the flow of this thread, I would agree with all the comments from Monkey Puppet regarding the Constitutionality of the taxing power, and the legal impact of repealing, or widely exposing the ratification issues with the 16th Amendment (that is, there would be basically none, since it conferred and extended no new powers to tax). Most followers of tax honesty issues know legally speaking the ratification issue is moot, as it is not the actual trigger that is causing the misapplication of the tax to most Americans.

But I am persuaded it's repeal would correct a great propaganda victory the amendment gives to the forces who misapply the income tax. The mass misunderstanding regarding the relevance of the amendment to most Americans is real---and I think, very deliberate. TPTB have always known that most people glaze over the minutia of this and most other issues, and not only cannot, but choose not, to sweat even the basic details. That's how most tyrannical law and regulation gets slipped into the books, and how the public receives the information has less to do with opening the books, but with reading the book cover. The 16th amendment gives most lazy people that 'book cover.' It seems to indicate to them there is an income tax all people are subject to, 'case closed.'

The IRS certainly plays on this when they crank out their intimidating sounding form letters that reference the 16th amendment as settling any issue over the legality of their presumed jurisdiction, or authority to misapply their assessment and enforcement powers. The amendment puts most people 'in the zone' of accepting IRS presumptions on face value, by providing de-facto color of law legitimacy to its actions. By logical extension, if the acceptance of the amendment shuts down any argument from most of the public, exposing its improper ratification or repealing it altogether, will re-open up the floor to questioning the tax to many reasonable people. The shorthand response of the masses in that case will be 'wait a minute, the amendment's been repealed or exposed, but you're telling me the IRS is still supposed to collect taxes from me? Huhh??"

It matters not, from the infowar point of view, that the lazy observer does not know the income tax is legal regardless of the 16th amendment. What matters is to get people out of the mindset that the applicability of the tax is limitless, or that the IRS's jurisdiction is universal, which is exactly the superficial impression the amendment currently gives to the general public. Precise education is only going to reach that remnant of people who want to get one. For most of the rest, the basic re-framing of the debate is the crucial pathway to success.
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!... I am not a number, I am a free man!"

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2011, 01:47:36 pm »
My mentioning of the at least 5 different versions of the 16th Amendment ratified by the several states, for this corporate usurper "agency in the employ of the federal government which CAN as a result tax the people even though the government itself still cannot, amendment, enabling the creation of the IRS/Federal Reserve system, got a rise...

When you have to sign up and pay the tax so you can earn a little to eat, or don't sign up and be free to starve... "will you now volunteer to pay the tax it's your choice."

Coerced volunteerism... IS slavery.

Oldyoti

"If the price I must pay for my freedom is
to acknowledge that the government was
granted the power to infringe on them,
then I am not free."
~Pol Anderson

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2011, 03:59:28 pm »
The 14th amendment placed all who "claimed citizenship"... another dictatorial command, since we are designated such at birth... under federal jurisdiction... totally against the ideas espoused in the Constitution.

The 15th federalized elections, a clear usurpation of the State's power to set the requirements for participation... even though, the people still retain... the right of Tar and Feathers," a lot easier to ride local and state officials out of town on a rail, than to do the same with federal scoundrels. T&F isn't used much anymore, should be revived though.

The 16th Amendment... is as MP lays out above... it removes the apportionment restriction essentially redefining "income"...

The 17th Amendment removes state representation at the federal level...

The 18th made a few very well off families fabulously wealthy and powerful...

yada, yada, yada....

Oldyoti

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility
of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing
the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every
other correction is either useless or a new evil."

~Thomas Jefferson

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2011, 05:54:16 pm »

The 14th amendment placed all who "claimed citizenship"... another dictatorial command, since we are designated such at birth... under federal jurisdiction... totally against the ideas espoused in the Constitution.


Forgot to add this and it's too late to edit my previous post on it...

For all those that take umbrage with my statement regarding the class of person created by the 14th Amendment being attributed to freed black slaves and their progeny, I offer this CURRENT portion of Title 42 (where the 14th is codified)...

42 USC 1981(a)
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens..."

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2011, 06:37:10 pm »
Forgot to add this and it's too late to edit my previous post on it...

For all those that take umbrage with my statement regarding the class of person created by the 14th Amendment being attributed to freed black slaves and their progeny, I offer this CURRENT portion of Title 42 (where the 14th is codified)...

42 USC 1981(a)
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens..."

The alarming thing about 1981(a) in title 42, is that liberty is entirely contingent on the level enjoyed by "white citizens"... if white folks are "sovereign"...which under 14th Amendment rule, individual sovereignty is impossible... then all other citizens are "sovereign as well. Conversely if whites have been enslaved, so then is the fate of all the people... this clause has always troubled me.

Oldyoti

"The legal right of the taxpayer to decrease the
amount of what otherwise would be his taxes or
altogether avoid them by means which the law
permits, cannot be doubted."

~Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2011, 10:34:15 pm »
Words cannot express how utterly nonsensical and pointless this post is.

Note that since it obvious that you have no interest in actually discussing the topic due to your intellectual superiority (::)), I will not be addressing you or your vacuous contributions to the clutter here again.

Did you look at my post regarding Title 42 USC, 1981(a)... Reminds me of some of the crap they stuck into Indian Tribal Land Treaties... "This land will be the Red Man's as long as the grass grows, the winds blow and the sky is blue..." So the bastards attack on a grass-less snow covered winter day, when the winds are dead still and the sky is grey and overcast.

Oldyoti

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance;
and a people who mean to be their own
governors must arm themselves with the
power which knowledge gives."

~James Madison

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2012, 09:52:25 am »
Relating to today's show !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

16th Amendment Improperly Ratified,

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2012, 11:58:30 am »
As rebutted numerous times here previously, the 16th Amendment is irrelevant with regard to the vast majority of Americans.

For those actually wanting to understand why, as opposed to clinging to sophistry and conjecture akin to those in the veritable "861 argument" crowd, I suggest reading carefully through THE landmark case on the issue... Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

There are others that came in the wake of Brushaber, but none spell it out so clearly... namely Doyle v. Mitchell, Southern Pacific v. Lowe, Eisner v. Macomber, and Merchant's v. Smietanka.

Also, an interesting reference, for those that can both stomach and navigate it, the first codification of the United States revenue laws, the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.  As you will see, there is much more of what the IRS now refers to as a "redundant language", which has the added benefit of providing clarity as to the proper subject and object of the various taxes imposed by Congress.  Hint:  "citizen of the United States" is not referring to citizens of the states of the union, but rather to those within Congress' jurisdiction.  The repeated use of the phrase "possessions of the United States" is quite telling... you won't find that in later revisions as it made things too clear.  Now we have mere implication and supposition using the term "includes" along with a short list to define the class of object instead.

However, perusing the various revisions is not necessary.  Brushaber spells it out sufficiently and makes concrete the truth of the matter... the various revenue Acts of the federal Congress are all pertaining to that which is within either its geographic or subject matter jurisdiction and nothing more.  As Brushaber tells us, the 16th MUST and does comply with the taxing provisions of the original Constitution.  Regardless of ratification, it does not pertain to the vast majority of Americans.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Ryujin

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Remember, remember the eleventh of September....
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2012, 03:39:57 pm »
@MonkeyPuppet: Nice, great info dump there MonkeyPuppet... though I'm gonna need something for the nausea before I can sit through all 500+ pages of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code... Good lord... where do they find the time to write these tomes?
You know what the funny and maybe just a little sad thing here is? Before their domestication by the Romans sheep were regarded as one of the more aggressive and free spirited creatures on this planet, sound familiar anyone?

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2012, 07:09:05 pm »

@MonkeyPuppet: Nice, great info dump there MonkeyPuppet... though I'm gonna need something for the nausea before I can sit through all 500+ pages of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code... Good lord... where do they find the time to write these tomes?


Thanks!

The beauty of federal law, especially tax law which has very narrow scope overall, is that for the most part, reading the nauseating details isn't really necessary... unless, of course, you are among those made liable.  Some of us far removed from that jurisdiction find it entertaining and informative, though.  They may call us geeks, nerds, or whatever, but it beats grasping at straws and subsequently spreading bullshit all over the internet :D

The foundation is that the law only applies to whom it applies.  This includes the constraints of jurisdiction first, then statutory definitions and authority second, and finally regulatory outlines on how to enforce the statute.  If Congress cannot impose a tax outside its geographical and subject matter jurisdiction, no amount of wordplay can change that... except as far as the power of ignorance may be, which is precisely what the problem is with regard to the income tax, FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2012, 02:18:53 pm »
So the fact that Taft was sent from Ohio a territory and not a state has no bearing ?

I find that hard to believe.

It is just like now where none of the bills Obama has signed into law are valid cuz he is not a US citizen.

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2012, 05:40:12 pm »

So the fact that Taft was sent from Ohio a territory and not a state has no bearing ?

I find that hard to believe.

It is just like now where none of the bills Obama has signed into law are valid cuz he is not a US citizen.


I apologize in advance for the lengthy reply, but if truly wish to know the truth, read on...

If indeed there was malfeasance, it should be corrected in the most appropriate manner necessary.  I am not excusing the corrupted behavior of politicians and bureaucrats.  However, this particular "truth" about the 16th Amendment, however valid or otherwise (not debating that part), is always presented with regard to the federal income tax and its imposition as far as the American public is concerned.  The implication, however subtle or direct, is that if we can get the 16th Amendment repealed, that American citizens would no longer suffer the burden of the tax.  I'm simply pointing out that this is in error.

What I've tried to explain, time and again, is that when it comes to federal law, jurisdiction is paramount.  With Acts enacted by Congress, context is equally important.  I've already shared a vital piece of this puzzle with Brushaber... where it is spelled out in painful detail how the 16th conferred no new power of taxation and that it must be read with the understanding that the original rules regarding the power of the federal government to tax still and must apply when it comes to all revenue Acts passed by Congress.

In short, this means that the federal Congress had the same power to tax after the 16th as it did before.  The only thing that changed was certain persons enjoying the fruits of certain privileged activities could no longer shelter their income in property to avoid their federal tax liability.  The easiest way to wrap your head around this is to understand what the words "taxes" and "excises" means in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

The word "taxes", with regard to Article I Section 8, means direct taxes... the worst kind for Congress to impose as it requires a stated purpose, duration, and voting for it would make re-election very difficult for a Congressman or Senator.  The federal government is an agent for the states collectively, so the tax is imposed upon the states which are then tasked with enforcing this imposition to be in compliance with their union membership.  Direct taxes are a nasty business for politicians... this is why they avoid them.

What is relevant here is the word "excises", as Brushaber explains is the proper class in which the income tax resides.  Excise means privilege.  In the context of federal law, it means the utilization of the federal government as a service within its limited scope of authority.  The federal government is the foreign agent for the states with regard to international matters... trade, commerce, war, defense, etc.  As far as trade and commerce are concerned, the utilization of this service of the federal government comes at a price for all but those who are union members (the states themselves).  This includes individuals, partnerships, corporations and trusts alike... some domestic (federally chartered, or residing in a protectorate/possession), but mostly foreign.

Now, with the understanding that the income tax is relevant only within the scope of the federal government's Constitutional purpose and authority, the obvious question is then why does practically every American "have to" pay... or else!!  This is where yet another charge of malfeasance comes to light, irrespective of the 16th Amendment.  The ONLY reason the IRS is even aware of the remuneration paid to domestic American workers is the erroneous reporting of it by payers in the form of information returns... W-2's and 1099's.  There is no other method, and these information returns are not verified nor vetted in any way whatsoever.  If one is received by the IRS' ACS (automated collection system), a module is created for the stated person for that tax year and a series of filings are expected from that point forward.

This mal-application of law took those in power a long time to implement domestically... 40 years, actually, as it wasn't until the BIR changed its name to the IRS when the 1953 revision of the Internal Revenue Code was released that domestic payers started, little by little, erroneously requiring workers and contractors to fill out W-4's and W9's.  Just look at a form 1040 from the year 1940, and the associated instructions... remember, context and jurisdiction are key.  Notice the sections "Filing of Returns and Payment of Tax" and "Items Exempt from Tax".  You can do this same exercise by searching for the form 1040 and the year you'd like to see... it should be the first search result.  The language gets more and more vague over the years.

Look, you have to ask yourself... if SCOTUS says that the Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, which means the federal government already had the same taxing authority before the Amendment, what affect does the Amendment have?  If you're having a hard time with the answer, it is because you are not among those whom such an Amendment would affect at all.  Furthermore, since we have no yet been burdened by a direct tax imposed by the federal Congress (upon the states, who then seek it independently from their citizens), what privilege/service (excise) does the average American utilize of the federal government to warrant a tax within its excise taxing authority?

See, the federal Congress can impose an excise on just about anything it wants within its jurisdiction... the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other territories and possessions.  These are not states and the citizens thereof are "citizens of the United States".  With this in mind, go back and read the instructions for the 1040... they read quite differently with the proper context in mind.

Everything I've discussed can be verified in the various revenue Acts passed by Congress since the ratification of the Constitution itself, Treasury Decisions, SCOTUS rulings and opinions, and in the words of the Founders.  I've kept a link to a book in my signature here since it was released that is a compendium of this information.  I wish I wrote it, but I did not.  Prior to being able to refer people to it, I had to dispense posts like this and so much more to break through the conditioning and lack of understanding of some very basic concepts (jurisdiction and context for starters).  However, if your interest is genuine, I suggest getting the book... the author does a much better job in presenting the information that I can.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Ryujin

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Remember, remember the eleventh of September....
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2012, 12:44:54 pm »
Once again, nice break down MonkeyPuppet. While I know how frustrating to keep having to go over this whole 16th amendment stuff just keep in mind that as you knowledge on a give subject becomes so does your clarity of sight. You can see it for what it is but those just starting out are still half blind. As for me... I think I might have around 20/300 vision compared to your 20/20 in as far as tax knowledge is concerned
heh.

Though I do have one question, not on the 16th amendment but rather on the whole not signing a W-4 and so on. Why is it that employers get in trouble for paying a employee "under the table" then? What mumbo-jumbo are they using to come down on these guys?
You know what the funny and maybe just a little sad thing here is? Before their domestication by the Romans sheep were regarded as one of the more aggressive and free spirited creatures on this planet, sound familiar anyone?

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2012, 02:28:47 pm »

Though I do have one question, not on the 16th amendment but rather on the whole not signing a W-4 and so on. Why is it that employers get in trouble for paying a employee "under the table" then? What mumbo-jumbo are they using to come down on these guys?


Because you can't have one foot in the door and one foot out.  They file federal tax forms for their business when they otherwise most likely do not have to and should not... not that the IRS will correct them on that.  This provides a window into their business and it could be construed that such a business should and must account for where money goes.  See, a "withholding agent" is the last domestic person (individual or entity) to have custody of money destined for a foreign person.  If a domestic business that does not understand tax law (most do not), they will refer to themselves as withholding agents... after all, their workers signed a form W-4 requesting that money be withheld, right?

If a business, most likely avoiding the law (not understanding it), pays people "under the table", they believe they are doing something wrong, but do it anyway.  Sometimes this alone gets them in trouble.  Other times it is the ignorant workers (current or former) that report it to the IRS.

The lie is so firmly implanted into the psyche of the population that when confronted with the truth, they will defend the system.  This is because they not only have been lied to their entire lives, but also because to acknowledge the truth (not just that something is wrong), they might have to act.  This makes people very uncomfortable, even if they do not realize this is how they are reacting.

Now, there are plenty of nontaxpayers that work for companies that otherwise file federal tax forms.  The business knows these workers are nontaxpayers and simple does not send information returns to the IRS.  It really is no different making payments to an individual as compensation for their labor and effort than it is paying an electric bill, phone bill, water bill or other services.

All of this and more is covered in the book, btw.  Get it... you won't be disappointed.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Ryujin

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Remember, remember the eleventh of September....
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2012, 03:21:22 pm »
Thanks for the prompt reply MonkeyPuppet.

Ok. figured it was along those lines. That's a question that tends to come up every time I get into a discussion on income tax so I wanted to be sure I was answering it correctly. But yeah, I'm definitely gonna give that book a good look over, as you stated this whole tax thing is very deeply imprinted in people's minds so I think that this needs to be a topic that more of us infowarriors are educated in.
You know what the funny and maybe just a little sad thing here is? Before their domestication by the Romans sheep were regarded as one of the more aggressive and free spirited creatures on this planet, sound familiar anyone?

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2012, 03:32:24 pm »
I apologize in advance for the lengthy reply, but if truly wish to know the truth, read on...

If indeed there was malfeasance, it should be corrected in the most appropriate manner necessary.  I am not excusing the corrupted behavior of politicians and bureaucrats.  However, this particular "truth" about the 16th Amendment, however valid or otherwise (not debating that part), is always presented with regard to the federal income tax and its imposition as far as the American public is concerned.  The implication, however subtle or direct, is that if we can get the 16th Amendment repealed, that American citizens would no longer suffer the burden of the tax.  I'm simply pointing out that this is in error.

What I've tried to explain, time and again, is that when it comes to federal law, jurisdiction is paramount.  With Acts enacted by Congress, context is equally important.  I've already shared a vital piece of this puzzle with Brushaber... where it is spelled out in painful detail how the 16th conferred no new power of taxation and that it must be read with the understanding that the original rules regarding the power of the federal government to tax still and must apply when it comes to all revenue Acts passed by Congress.

In short, this means that the federal Congress had the same power to tax after the 16th as it did before.  The only thing that changed was certain persons enjoying the fruits of certain privileged activities could no longer shelter their income in property to avoid their federal tax liability.  The easiest way to wrap your head around this is to understand what the words "taxes" and "excises" means in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

The word "taxes", with regard to Article I Section 8, means direct taxes... the worst kind for Congress to impose as it requires a stated purpose, duration, and voting for it would make re-election very difficult for a Congressman or Senator.  The federal government is an agent for the states collectively, so the tax is imposed upon the states which are then tasked with enforcing this imposition to be in compliance with their union membership.  Direct taxes are a nasty business for politicians... this is why they avoid them.

What is relevant here is the word "excises", as Brushaber explains is the proper class in which the income tax resides.  Excise means privilege.  In the context of federal law, it means the utilization of the federal government as a service within its limited scope of authority.  The federal government is the foreign agent for the states with regard to international matters... trade, commerce, war, defense, etc.  As far as trade and commerce are concerned, the utilization of this service of the federal government comes at a price for all but those who are union members (the states themselves).  This includes individuals, partnerships, corporations and trusts alike... some domestic (federally chartered, or residing in a protectorate/possession), but mostly foreign.

Now, with the understanding that the income tax is relevant only within the scope of the federal government's Constitutional purpose and authority, the obvious question is then why does practically every American "have to" pay... or else!!  This is where yet another charge of malfeasance comes to light, irrespective of the 16th Amendment.  The ONLY reason the IRS is even aware of the remuneration paid to domestic American workers is the erroneous reporting of it by payers in the form of information returns... W-2's and 1099's.  There is no other method, and these information returns are not verified nor vetted in any way whatsoever.  If one is received by the IRS' ACS (automated collection system), a module is created for the stated person for that tax year and a series of filings are expected from that point forward.

This mal-application of law took those in power a long time to implement domestically... 40 years, actually, as it wasn't until the BIR changed its name to the IRS when the 1953 revision of the Internal Revenue Code was released that domestic payers started, little by little, erroneously requiring workers and contractors to fill out W-4's and W9's.  Just look at a form 1040 from the year 1940, and the associated instructions... remember, context and jurisdiction are key.  Notice the sections "Filing of Returns and Payment of Tax" and "Items Exempt from Tax".  You can do this same exercise by searching for the form 1040 and the year you'd like to see... it should be the first search result.  The language gets more and more vague over the years.

Look, you have to ask yourself... if SCOTUS says that the Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, which means the federal government already had the same taxing authority before the Amendment, what affect does the Amendment have?  If you're having a hard time with the answer, it is because you are not among those whom such an Amendment would affect at all.  Furthermore, since we have no yet been burdened by a direct tax imposed by the federal Congress (upon the states, who then seek it independently from their citizens), what privilege/service (excise) does the average American utilize of the federal government to warrant a tax within its excise taxing authority?

See, the federal Congress can impose an excise on just about anything it wants within its jurisdiction... the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other territories and possessions.  These are not states and the citizens thereof are "citizens of the United States".  With this in mind, go back and read the instructions for the 1040... they read quite differently with the proper context in mind.

Everything I've discussed can be verified in the various revenue Acts passed by Congress since the ratification of the Constitution itself, Treasury Decisions, SCOTUS rulings and opinions, and in the words of the Founders.  I've kept a link to a book in my signature here since it was released that is a compendium of this information.  I wish I wrote it, but I did not.  Prior to being able to refer people to it, I had to dispense posts like this and so much more to break through the conditioning and lack of understanding of some very basic concepts (jurisdiction and context for starters).  However, if your interest is genuine, I suggest getting the book... the author does a much better job in presenting the information that I can.

Yes the Federal Government does have the power to tax but only US citizens are allowed to hold office.  Foreigners from territories or other nations are not.  The fact that Taft was an Ohio citizen but not a US citizen is the key here.  This is why income taxes are illegitimate.

Offline Ryujin

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
  • Remember, remember the eleventh of September....
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2012, 04:30:55 pm »
@Constitutionary: While there's no doubt that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified that doesn't change anything on incometax since it didn't grant the government any new tax powers. The thing is income tax isn't on it's own unconstitutional, the government can tax income. The problem is that we've been tricked into thinking that the money we make with our own labor is income when it's not.
You know what the funny and maybe just a little sad thing here is? Before their domestication by the Romans sheep were regarded as one of the more aggressive and free spirited creatures on this planet, sound familiar anyone?

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2012, 09:19:47 pm »

Yes the Federal Government does have the power to tax but only US citizens are allowed to hold office.  Foreigners from territories or other nations are not.  The fact that Taft was an Ohio citizen but not a US citizen is the key here.  This is why income taxes are illegitimate.


The federal government has the power to tax the states of the union directly and the exercise of a federal privilege.  Money is not taxed in the latter case, only the activity.  The income generated from the privileged activity, such as foreign trade and commerce, is the measure for the amount of tax.

The 16th Amendment did not create this taxing power.  It is contained within Article I Section 8 of the original Constitution.  The Amendment merely removed the occasion for those enjoying such a privilege, such as rent collected from federal lands ceded for commercial purposes (i.e. railroads), to avoid the tax by claiming the imposition makes the tax direct.

Your last sentence, being an incorrect assumption with regard to the Amendment, is complete nonsense and has no basis in law whatsoever.




@Constitutionary: While there's no doubt that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified that doesn't change anything on incometax since it didn't grant the government any new tax powers. The thing is income tax isn't on it's own unconstitutional, the government can tax income. The problem is that we've been tricked into thinking that the money we make with our own labor is income when it's not.


Technically speaking, this is not true not true.  Any money you receive in service to others, be it from goods or labor, is "income".  However, the income of the vast majority of Americans is outside of the federal Congress' authority to tax.  You cannot tax the exercise, by citizens of the 50 states of the union, of a right.

The "tricked" part is absolutely the problem.  Americans, both workers and payers, are erroneously filing forms and information returns with the INTERNAL revenue agency of the FEDERAL government.  That agency, and Congress, simply doesn't correct them because they want that money so they can use it as an interest guarantee on loans from the private banking cartel... money that they literally fart into existence.  Kinda makes you feel stupid when someone puts it that way, eh?  All this barking about the evil Federal Reserve, and the same people barking are perpetuating the fraud and are literally parties to it.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2012, 02:08:53 pm »
No one is debating Congress' power to tax.

I am mainly sayin gthat the 16th Amendment and the income tax are un-Constitutional.  Had a US citizen been in the Presidency and passed it there would be no debate as to its constitutionality.

However since Taft wasn't it is just the same as laws being passed by foreigners.

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2012, 07:03:35 pm »

No one is debating Congress' power to tax.


Yes, you are... even if you don't know it.



I am mainly sayin gthat the 16th Amendment and the income tax are un-Constitutional.


The 16th Amendment, by its wording, scope and effect, is not.  If indeed it was signed into law by someone ineligible to hold the office of the President, then yes, as a law it would be unconstitutional, BUT the remedy would be to simply ratify it once again because its wording, scope and effect are not unconstitutional.  The fact that you don't understand that last part is exactly what my point has been this entire thread... and in others where you've peddled this erroneous nonsense (as to its basic meaning).

The income tax is NOT unconstitutional.  The 16th Amendment did not create Congress' authority to impose an income tax... and the inverse is your argument.  I am simply pointing out for all who read this thread that this is an incorrect correlation.  Congress has always had the power to tax income [within its geographical and subject matter jurisdiction].  The 16th deals with one tiny aspect of clarification only with regard to that previously existing power... and it has NOTHING to do with the vast majority of Americans whatsoever.



Had a US citizen been in the Presidency and passed it there would be no debate as to its constitutionality.


No, we'd still be having this debate because an actual U.S. citizen would have signed it after it went through a legitimate ratification process anyway.  And you would still not understand what it means and how it doesn't even affect the vast majority of Americans.



However since Taft wasn't it is just the same as laws being passed by foreigners.


*facepalm*  Dude... read my words, stop assuming things, and grasp an understanding of jurisdiction.  I've laid it out in this thread (and others) in painful detail.  I would find it hard to believe anyone else is having a hard time understanding it at this point.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2012, 12:17:48 pm »
The income tax is NOT unconstitutional.  The 16th Amendment did not create Congress' authority to impose an income tax... and the inverse is your argument.  I am simply pointing out for all who read this thread that this is an incorrect correlation.  Congress has always had the power to tax income [within its geographical and subject matter jurisdiction].  The 16th deals with one tiny aspect of clarification only with regard to that previously existing power... and it has NOTHING to do with the vast majority of Americans whatsoever.

Then whose "income" is getting taxed by this Amendment ?

So what law is responsible for the W-4s and W-2s then ?


Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2012, 04:32:17 pm »

Then whose "income" is getting taxed by this Amendment ?

So what law is responsible for the W-4s and W-2s then ?


As I've stated numerous times here and elsewhere, Subtitle A (income tax) is imposed upon foreign persons with domestic source income, their withholding agents, and U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign source income.

There is no "law" responsible for these forms.  There are only regulations...

Form W-4: C.F.R. 31.3402(p1)-1

Form W-2: C.F.R. 31.6501-1

However, reading statutes and regulations requires a basic understanding of jurisdiction as well as statutory construction.  If a tax, or the power to tax possessed by a government body or agency, doesn't even apply to you from a jurisdictional standpoint, there is no wording of a statute or regulation that can change that.  Only IF you determine that you are among those made liable, or those than can be made liable, does the language of the statute even matter.

The simple fact is that with regard to the vast majority of Americans living and working within the 50 states, the ONLY evidence the IRS uses to collect the income tax, regardless of actual fact, are the forms W-2 and 1099... the information reporting forms used by payers to report payments made to employees and contractors.  There is no vetting of this information.  The IRS and DOJ do not care if the implication of the mere filing of the form is accurate.  They just want the money and they would prefer that the scam continue.

It is the INTERNAL Revenue Code for the FEDERAL government... is this clicking for you yet?

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2012, 07:15:01 pm »
As I've stated numerous times here and elsewhere, Subtitle A (income tax) is imposed upon foreign persons with domestic source income, their withholding agents, and U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign source income.

There is no "law" responsible for these forms.  There are only regulations...

Form W-4: C.F.R. 31.3402(p1)-1

Form W-2: C.F.R. 31.6501-1

However, reading statutes and regulations requires a basic understanding of jurisdiction as well as statutory construction.  If a tax, or the power to tax possessed by a government body or agency, doesn't even apply to you from a jurisdictional standpoint, there is no wording of a statute or regulation that can change that.  Only IF you determine that you are among those made liable, or those than can be made liable, does the language of the statute even matter.

The simple fact is that with regard to the vast majority of Americans living and working within the 50 states, the ONLY evidence the IRS uses to collect the income tax, regardless of actual fact, are the forms W-2 and 1099... the information reporting forms used by payers to report payments made to employees and contractors.  There is no vetting of this information.  The IRS and DOJ do not care if the implication of the mere filing of the form is accurate.  They just want the money and they would prefer that the scam continue.

It is the INTERNAL Revenue Code for the FEDERAL government... is this clicking for you yet?

I am trying to understand, accounting and finance have never been my cups of tea.  I can do calculus and algebra with no problem yet I have other people do my taxes cuz to do so myself gives me a head-ache.

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Re: Proof the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified
« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2012, 07:16:43 pm »
Such terms like statutes, codes, regulations, etc. to much beaurcratese.

Offline a ReVoLuTIONarY ideA

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2012, 07:34:33 pm »
In order to understand the IRS and the tax code you have to understand this simply reality: LAWS DO NOT EXIST. There are people with guns and they want the fruits of your labor. Writing words on paper is a technicality which assists the elite in fooling 90% of the population who has not been able to free themselves from the public "education" indoctrination that preaches "The Rule of Law".

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2012, 02:23:14 am »

In order to understand the IRS and the tax code you have to understand this simply reality: LAWS DO NOT EXIST. There are people with guns and they want the fruits of your labor. Writing words on paper is a technicality which assists the elite in fooling 90% of the population who has not been able to free themselves from the public "education" indoctrination that preaches "The Rule of Law".


This is nonsense.  The Rule of Law is not a mythical creature, but rather a muddied swamp where the only way to clarity is for the People to remember it is their responsibility to remain educated and diligent despite the bullshit.  I realize that the government school fool system is a powerful tool used to keep the masses ignorant, but not everyone is brainwashed.  Look at this forum and others... on top of that, each of us knows one or more others personally that are awake.

What's missing is any direction for lack of leadership.  Alex and others like him play their part in getting information out there, but regardless of how necessary and vital, this is not leadership.  And no, I don't mean people need leaders in order to effect change... I mean they need leadership, even if it comes from within, to know the when and what that is missing from this entire revolution of the mind.  We know the f**king why, but that's not the problem anymore.

As for the Internal Revenue Code and the parallel regulations... they are not cryptic when one considers the BASICS.

1. The FEDERAL government is the FOREIGN AGENT of the states of the union with regard to international matters.
2. ALL federal authority is delegated from the states of the union and it is limited by #1.
3. The ONLY evidence used by the IRS and DOJ to assess and collect the income tax from those otherwise NOT made liable by jurisdiction are information returns submitted by third parties... i.e. private payers.
4. If you still think the IRS is the bad guy here, re-read #3.  They may be lying toyou, but they're not lying about you, which is the only reason they're f**king with you in the first place!

This is where that old adage comes into play... ignorance is no excuse.  Indeed, ignorance is their ONLY weapon against liberty.  While the federal government is absolutely correct, it still operates under the Rule of Law.  This is why they invest so much in making sure the People do not understand it... you cannot effectively defend what you don't understand.


"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes On Virginia," Query XVIII: the Particular Customs and Manners That May Happen to Be Received In That State, 1782; ME 2:224

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2012, 03:37:20 am »
Yes the Federal Government does have the power to tax but only US citizens are allowed to hold office.  Foreigners from territories or other nations are not.  The fact that Taft was an Ohio citizen but not a US citizen is the key here.  This is why income taxes are illegitimate.

It's all quite simple actually, the federal government does not have this power to tax, and it doesn't tax... this is the ruse. The 16th Amendment only clears the way for a fraudulently passed and signed law, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, that transfered the congressional monetary power to a private corporate agency which not only provides Congress with new monies for appropriations... but as a private agency the Federal Reserve Board has the power to contract for private agency taxation via the corporate structure...

The defunct BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue) a very limited treasury department of the federal government used to collect LAWFUL taxes. It was not needed after the Fed was created since this function could be contracted to the FED's private collection arm called the IRS.

This complete system is extra constitutional and totally separate from the Constitutional Federal Government. So... if you sign a contract with this private organization promising to pay part of your salary or wages to them... by the laws of contracts, torts, by your signature on that W-4 or that 1099... you are under contract to pay as party to a fraudulently incepted "legal" contract.

JTCoyoté

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the law of God, and
that there is not a force of law and public justice
to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
 
~John Adams

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2012, 04:48:11 am »

It's all quite simple actually, the federal government does not have this power to tax, and it doesn't tax... this is the ruse. The 16th Amendment only clears the way for a fraudulently passed and signed law, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, that transfered the congressional monetary power to a private corporate agency which not only provides Congress with new monies for appropriations... but as a private agency the Federal Reserve Board has the power to contract for private agency taxation via the corporate structure...

The defunct BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue) a very limited treasury department of the federal government used to collect LAWFUL taxes. It was not needed after the Fed was created since this function could be contracted to the FED's private collection arm called the IRS.

This complete system is extra constitutional and totally separate from the Constitutional Federal Government. So... if you sign a contract with this private organization promising to pay part of your salary or wages to them... by the laws of contracts, torts, by your signature on that W-4 or that 1099... you are under contract to pay as party to a fraudulently incepted "legal" contract.

JTCoyoté

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the law of God, and
that there is not a force of law and public justice
to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
 
~John Adams



Yes and no, JT.

You are correct that for those not otherwise actually liable for FEDERAL income tax (the average American, living and working within the states), a separate agreement must be made, but it is not with the IRS.  The agreement is merely with the payer... the IRS will never see a form W-4 or W-9 (which prompt the payer to submit W2's and 1099's, respectively).  I know you know this, but I'm clarifying for others.

As for the BIR/IRS thing... it wasn't until 1953 that the BIR got its name change.  This coincided with the revised Internal Revenue Code of 1954.  This revision removed what they refer to as "redundant language".  However, the original 1939 codification of federal tax statutes was much more clear as to its proper object.  The 1954 version and subsequent 1986 version are much less clear.  Remember, the code is not "the law", but rather a codification of statutes, summarized and categorized for easy reference.

Is the IRS the interest-guarantee collection arm of the Federal Reserve?  You bet!  However, that has no bearing upon the issue at hand (though quite important and interesting).

What is more important to remember is that if a law, by jurisdiction, does not even apply to you, the wording of the statute or the obfuscation provided through its codification are irrelevant to the truth.

What most avoid, even after having it repeated over and over again for them to simply read, is the basic fact that the vast majority of Americans are not liable beyond the voluntary withholding agreements they are erroneously required to fill out with prospective payers.  These agreements are non-binding and can be rescinded at any time.  The only problem is... payers erroneously believe they must file the subsequent information returns because they too are ignorant of the law.  Unfortunately, the truth is no match for their fear (based on ignorance) of the IRS.  Unless they are willing to actually learn the truth, they would probably rather terminate a "problem" worker than bother themselves with useful information.

With only one worker every now and again bringing the issue to light, and with only 1 in 100 companies, practically no one has ever had to deal with someone who has learned the truth (and refuses to participate).  This lack of exposure makes it look as if those workers are fringe nutjobs, making it very easy for payers to ignore them (or not hire them, or fire them).  However if 100's, 1000's, or even 100's of 1000's of workers started demanding that payers actually follow the law, they could no longer ignore us or punish us (for their ignorance and cowardice!).

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline a ReVoLuTIONarY ideA

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: 16th Amendment Improperly Ratified
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2012, 04:01:18 pm »
This is nonsense.

No it is not nonsense. I will clarify what I said by defining the term "law" as I use it. A law is a rule that is absolute and universally aplicable. There are no laws in the legal sense. I will name a few mythical laws that do not, in reality, exist: murder, kidnapping, terrorism. Our gov't murders, kidnaps (arrests), and commits acts of terrorism on a daily basis. The rule of law is a myth. There are only people with guns (and a multitude of other devices which kill and maim) coercing you to do things that you do not want to do. The "laws" are for you to follow not for them to follow.