Quote:
Most people just assume it exsists, but this guy actually looked into it and found that the 16th amendment was never actually approved by the states in 1913
Some days you just get that
feeling that something spouted something
bullshit-er-iffic on the forums. Usually I ignore that feeling, but by God I'm happy that I didn't ignore it this time.
*Cracks Knuckles*
Ahem...
*Cracks Neck from Side-to-Side*
Okay, we'll start off with the MOST important piece of evidence: The constitution itself, Article V, which deals with the process for Amendments:
Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
So, we need (At present), 3/4ths of the States (2/3rds of 50 is 38) to ratify an amendment to get it passed. However, in 1913 there only 48 states, meaning only 36 were necessary. But this is inconsequential, as
42 states ratified it. If you want the list and dates, by God I'll provide them to you.
Next, let's look at the Supreme Court's Early decisions. Please keep in mind(Constitution Article III, Section 2):
Quote:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Or in essence, to define and interperet the Law using the measuring stick of the Constitution, define (and possibly overturn) older cases, etc. We then look to Mr. Justice Butler's comments of 1926, 271 U.S. 170:
Quote:
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. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
Now, just in case this nutjob wishes to claim that Congress did not already have the ability to levy taxes, I immediately point him to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution:
Quote:
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;
(Please note that taxes are not required to be uniform throughout the United States.)
Or, put more succintly (Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 653 at 659 (1959), aff'd, 277 F.2d 16, 60-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9389 (3d Cir. 1960).):
Quote:
In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.
ANd let's not forget the definition of income, as decided in 1955, in 348 U.S. 426, Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
Income is defined as any increase in wealth, excepting those for which a clear exception has been made, either through the legislative, executive, or judicial branches. Part of this is income from a Life Insurance return on a deceased relative, scholarships, and gifts.
Well, there we go, that blows enough holes in this guy's argument to put paid to it for good.
BUT JUST IN CASE! I will watch the entire movie for you guys and rebuke every individual argument he makes if you want me to. Hell, I'll even give you one right now.
He says:
"...this fraud, and was even cited, in a recent court case.
The screen shows "If you...examined [The 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." -U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, 2003
Uh... FIRST THING that pops into my head is that there is no source given for this, meaning that it could very well have been made up. I'm not saying that it WAS. BUt it could be, and failing to include a source is a major offense to credibility. You really need a source better than just who said it, you really nead the case number as well. Otherwise, it could just be something offhand.
Alternatively (and most likely), this judge is an imbicile. Once again, I can provide you with a long list of the 42 states who ratified it. AND THE MAJORITY of the claims that the 16th amendment was not ratified by 'X' state boils down to "They capitalized this word and it wasn't capitalized on the first form from the U.S. Congress. Therefore, IT IS INVALID!"
*Whew*
Well, I think that about sums it up. It's almost 1, and I've got a long day at work ahead of me. But my offer remains, I will watch the whole thing and debunk it step-by-step for you guys if you want.
Added after 47 seconds:THAT enough for you, Billy?
