Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pussyluver
The obvious, this person has no concept of the Constitution of the US.
Other than that, moron kinda somes it up.
|
do you know your constitution?
is that why you keep paying (donating) your taxes to IRS based on a big lie
Some Americans who object to income taxes claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified. These people are commonly referred to as tax protesters. Claims calling into question the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment cite factors such as differences in capitalization, spelling of words, and use of punctuation among the bills ratified by the various states. Another frequently asserted argument is that Ohio was not actually a state in 1913 because a Congressional proclamation recognizing the statehood of Ohio was not issued until 1953?although Ohio had been sending representatives to Congress and participating in presidential elections since 1803.
Another tax protestor argument is that even if the Sixteenth Amendment was validly ratified, it merely "implied" the authority for an income tax, without explicitly creating it.
The best-known proponent of the non-ratification claim is Bill Benson, co-author of the book The Law That Never Was. His arguments were used by the defendants in several court cases, and were rejected in each one. In one of these cases, U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.
Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and?taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems?advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. . . . Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.
Federal courts have rejected appeals based on claims of non-ratification, and some now consider them "frivolous" suits that are subject to sanction. In Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1984), the court held, "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it." when that court was presented with an argument that there were defects in the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment by the states.
A strong libertarian viewpoint proposes the existence of a natural right to "enjoy all the fruits of one's own labor" (previously protected, they claim, by the Ninth Amendment). Taxation is argued to be an infringement on that right, and this amendment is criticized as a major expansion of the taxing power of the federal government.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...Constitut ion
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
http://www.canadanewswire.com/en/rel.../24/c2716.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=14719