Amendment 16 to the Constitution of the US

Amendment XVI (Ratified February 3, 1913)
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.


Since this was never ratified by a 2/3 vote of the states, how can this be declared legal? Why do they tax our income? This was the beginning of the road to socialism in this country IMHO.

Comments?

Clearly, the government could not redistribute wealth without first having the means to appropriate income.

Since this was never ratified by a 2/3 vote of the states, how can this be declared legal?

By what means was the amendment ratified?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Clearly, the government could not redistribute wealth without first having the means to appropriate income.

By what means was the amendment ratified?

thats what I want to know!

This was brought up in court in Fort Smith (a little way from my town) By a bussiness man who refused to pay income tax the a lawyer from the Libertarian Party defended him.

You know what the Judge said?

That the Government Did NOT HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL reason to force you to pay income tax. It was in the papers all around here. According to the Judges ruling they could take your money and the Constitution be damned.

Welcome to the land of the free

Originally posted by Amuk
This was brought up in court in Fort Smith (a little way from my town) By a bussiness man who refused to pay income tax the a lawyer from the Libertarian Party defended him.

You know what the Judge said?

That the Government Did NOT HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL reason to force you to pay income tax. It was in the papers all around here. According to the Judges ruling they could take your money and the Constitution be damned.

Welcome to the land of the free

You mean we agree on something?

Btw, got a phone number for the lawyer?

Before the Civil War, the 13th amendment barred anyone who held a foreign title of nobility from holding public office.

This was aimed at lawyers, since American lawyers have the title of "esquire" bestowed upon them as a class by George III of England.

But the reconstructionist congress numbered the anti-slavery amendment as number 13, and just kept going.

So yeah, we have a history of using the Constitution as a welcome mat.



[edit on 20-10-2004 by dr_strangecraft]

Here is an article about How some state did not legally ratify the 16th amendment. From the article it states that only 20 states ratified it, 16 short of the 36 needed (there were 48 states in 1909).

www.givemeliberty.org...

And then, this article talks about how the 16th amendment is actually not even an issue like Amuk was stating.

In short, the issue of the 16th Amendment is a moot point, as it did nothing to expand Congress� taxing jurisdiction, and the removal of it would do nothing to reduce Congress taxing power. In the words of the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment did not "[render] anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before" (Evans v. Gore (253 U.S. 245 (1920))). And as recently as 1988, the Supreme Court CONFIRMED that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress new powers of taxation...

www.taxableincome.net...

Read them and let me know what you think!

For an excellent link. Much more sophisticated than the original argument re the 16th amend, if you follow the links.

Cool. Wonder what my CPA will say.

So, uhh, does anyone still want to talk about this. I think it's more worthwhile than "partisan hackery" as John Stewart would put it. Have any of you heard about the Uniform Commercial Code?

Originally posted by Jamuhn


And then, this article talks about how the 16th amendment is actually not even an issue like Amuk was stating.

In short, the issue of the 16th Amendment is a moot point, as it did nothing to expand Congress� taxing jurisdiction, and the removal of it would do nothing to reduce Congress taxing power. In the words of the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment did not "[render] anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before" (Evans v. Gore (253 U.S. 245 (1920))). And as recently as 1988, the Supreme Court CONFIRMED that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress new powers of taxation...

Read them and let me know what you think!

Very interesting, thanks!

please tell us more about the uniform commercial code, jahmun

any form of weatlth distrbution is socialism. i work for my money, let me support my family! not other peoples families

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
any form of weatlth distrbution is socialism. i work for my money, let me support my family! not other peoples families

What about libraries, roads, stuff like that? Or would you want libraries to charge admission (which might prevent poor people from learning) or toll roads
on every corner?

Originally posted by curme

What about libraries, roads, stuff like that? Or would you want libraries to charge admission (which might prevent poor people from learning) or toll roads
on every corner?

I'd like to comment if I may.

Roads, schools, libraries, courthouses even statues are not income redistribution in any normal sense of the word. They are public works equally enjoyed by all.

Taking money from my pocket with the threat of jail or fines (ie; at the point of a gun) to put it directly into someone elses pocket is income re-distribution that certainly qualifies as a socialist move.

As I have no problem helping the deserving poor, there needs to be some form of means testing to make sure it gets to those that are truly needy - not lazy.

A couple of comments:

Dr. Strangecraft makes an interesting comment about "esquire" being a title of nobility; therefore lawyers can't be legal because they have a patent of nobility or something.

That's silly. There aren't any lawyers here that have a "patent of nobility" from anyone. The term 'Esquire' doesn't have any legal standing, any more than that weird rocker from Minnesota who had the big album 'Purple Rain' is in line for the throne of England because he's a "Prince".

Curme raises an issue about who will provide the funds for government-monopoly institutions like libraries and roads, with the asssumption that there are things that the government should obviously provide, because ... well, just because!

While there are some things that are almost impossible for anyone but a government to provide (such as a limited national defense), almost everything else which the government has provided can be done (probably more efficiently and cost-effectively) by either a smaller local government or by private industry.

Curme uses the examples of toll roads and libraries. In Singapore and Hong Kong, most of the roads are toll roads; your car comes with a computerized module that reads the magnetic track markings as you enter and leave any toll road interchange. This works even if you leave a toll road run by Company A and immediately go to one run by Company B. At the end of the month, you are billed for your previous month's toll road, broken out by the different companies to which you owe. I suppose that, like here, you can arrange to have the money automatically debited from your account at the bank; indeed, that might be the normal way of doing things.

Here in the United States, many communities pay for the upkeep of their onw roads; this money is included in their HOA fees. If you want to drive on nice roads, you pay for them. If you don't drive on my roads (since you don't live in my neighborhood) you don't pay for them.

Sounds fair to me!

There are a lot of private libraries which are supported by philanthropists and subscriptions; they still do a good job, even though they're forced to compete with taxpayer-subsidized libraries.

The real issue I think Curme may be addressing is a philosophical one:

Should taxes be used to pay for the government goods and services that the taxpayer suses -- or should they be used to transfer goods and services from one group to another?

It seems to me that most people who want higher taxes do not do so in order that the people who pay the most taxes get the most services. Instead, the reason the high-tax people want higher taxes (for the other guy, of course) is because either (1) poor people deserve to have some of my money because they are good and rich people are not; or (2) a rich person should pay more because he is bad and the others are not.

Hey! Wait a minute! That's the same reason, isn't it? Wau!

It always seems to boil down to the same thing. We need to take away money from the producers and give them to the non-producers because producers -- even theough they seem to be responsible for creating jobs and other goodies like the Windows Operating System -- need to be punished in some way.

Typically, the steal-from-the-producers crowd justify their theft by saying that "well, they don't need that much money" -- as if they have the right to judge how much money a person should be allowed to keep!

Edited to recognize that Phoenix beat me to the punch.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Off_The_Street]

Yes, the whole esquire thing is quite silly. But I like it nonetheless. Personally, I think we should go back to distributing titles. Maybe then E! could focus on someone besides paris hilton.

Public libraries are usually . . . devoid of patrons. Most of the collections are dated and poorly maintained. The real research libraries are in fact on college and university campuses, and are "for profit" in the sense that you either pay student or visitor fees to use them.

Honestly, I don't mind libraries and public roads. What gets me is funding NPR, "the arts" in general, and wellfare and subsidized housing.

For anyone who believes that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified - this is a must read: Link

But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are reluctant to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a "political question" to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were "binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts." Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).

This information will come from the Corpus Juris Secundum

A little information about the Corpus Juris Secundum is:

The Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) with subtitle: Corpus Juris Secundum: Complete Restatement Of The Entire American Law As Developed By All Reported Cases (1936- ) 101 volumes. An alphabetical arrangement of legal topics as developed by U.S. federal and state cases (1658-date). Selected references to cases since the mid-1930s.

The CJS is an authoritative 20th century American legal encyclopedia that provides a clear statement of each area of law including areas of the law that are evolving and provides footnoted citations to case law and other primary sources of law. Named after the 6th century Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian I Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, the first codification of Roman law and civil law.

Corpus Juris Secundum (168 A. 229; 114 N.J. Eq. 68.):

"In this state, the right to practice law is conferred by letters-patent, issued under the great seal of the state by its chief executive. In re Branch, supra. This has been the custom from the very beginning of the Province of New Jersey. In re Hahn, supra. So that attorneys-at-law in New Jersesy are the holders of a franchise granted by the states, through the governor, by letters-patent, by the same authority as formerly was exercised by the British Crown. 1 Pollock & Maitland's History of English Laq 191. A franchise is a 'royal privilege, or branch of the king's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject.' 2 Bl. Com. 37. A special privilege conferred by government on individuals and which does not belong to the citizens of the country by common right. Ang. & A. Corp. P 4...."

"Since the right to practice an ordinary calling, business or profession is property (State v. Chapman, supra), it follows that the right to practice a profession conferred by the state as a franchise by virtue of what was originally a king's prerogative, is a property right. " 168 A. 229; 114 N.J. Eq. 68.

"Letters patent, an open document under seal of the government, granting some special right, authority, privilege, or property, or conferring some title;..." A Standard Dictionary of the English Language

All from: Cracking the Code (Uniform Commercial Code)

I think there is a definite case to be made that all lawyers have a title of nobility bestowed on them from England.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

"Since the right to practice an ordinary calling, business or profession is property (State v. Chapman, supra), it follows that the right to practice a profession conferred by the state as a franchise by virtue of what was originally a king's prerogative, is a property right. " 168 A. 229; 114 N.J. Eq. 68.

The final caluse "a property right." Does this mean that lawyers have an inherent right to practice their trade, or that they have a right to a usage, which can be bought an sold, like an easement or a lease etc.?

Property law is totally outside my realm of experience.

Well, its a right to usage...but, the reason it is called a franchise and a property right is that lawyers have a right to use the laws of the United States. All the US laws are ultimately owned by British corporations (See Thompson Group, LLC, LTD and subsidiaries)! US Laws, or Code, are private property and thus attornies have special property rights to use the code in the maritime court of law (a whole other subject).

Attorney:

"One who is admitted to practice as attorney at law, both by virtue of his oath of office and customs and traditions of the legal profession, owes to the court the highest duty of fidelity." 97 N.W. 2d 287; 255 255 Minn. 370 In re: Lord

That quote is just one of many showing how attornies ultimately owe their allegiance to the court rather than the client. Actually, here is one that spells it out very simply:

"Duty of attorney is to court if litigant client's interest threatens a state interest." 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 43.

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Jamuhn]