How Some States Did Not Legally Ratify the 16th Amendment

I want my money back!

 

You'd think that a smart lawer would want to make a name for himself if you could successfuly sue the IRS' legality.

 

The idea of the ratification of the 16th Amendment has been oft discussed in these United States and knocked around as to its legality. Regardless, the courts accept it as valid so it is basically tilting at windmills to try to argue that it isn't valid.

 

Don Quioxte was a Cowboys fan, too, I think.

 

You may well have read it somewhere that 'the prohibition amendment to the Constitution was the only amendment that took away liberties from the people.' But the income tax amendment is another one. This is what authorizes the feds to take some of our money before we ever see it, and it is what allows feds to nose into the business of churches. If you remember that Baptist church in Chicago that was destroyed by feds because it is against their beliefs to be an arm of the government and withhold some of staff's salaries, this amendment is what makes that allowable.

 

Happy birthday, Alcott!

I understand your point. Historically speaking, the withholding of the federal income tax started during World War II. It was not a part of the 16th amendment:

"[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The Origin of Tax Withholding[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]So where did the withholding tax come from? It was not part of the original income tax that resulted from the sixteenth amendment in 1913. Very few people paid any taxes back then anyway. The income tax did not directly affect the average American until World War II.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]On the eve of the war, few Americans paid income taxes.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]Those that owed taxes paid them in one lump sum on March 15 (later changed to April 15). To pay for the war, the Revenue Act of 1942 lowered exemptions and raised income tax rates. But it also did something even more insidious—it instituted a 5 percent "Victory Tax" on all wages above an exemption of $624. The tax was to be collected by the employer and deducted from the employee’s paycheck—just like the Social Security tax that began in 1935.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 then revolutionized the income tax by making withholding taxes universal. The withholding tax was part of the new tax plan offered by Beardsley Ruml (1894–1960), the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and treasurer of R.H. Macy and Co. By 1945, about three-fourths of Americans were paying federal income taxes. And although the withholding tax was sold as a wartime emergency, like most expansions of government instituted during wartime, it has been a way of life for most Americans ever since."[/FONT]

- www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=542

 

Some have won court cases,with regards to the income tax.
Income is a "GAIN" not an exchange,wage for labor is an exchange therefore not taxable ,the question is "How opposed to the federal tax are you"?

Tommy Crier is one of them.Aaron Russo has a documentary called "America,fromfreedom to Facsim" really well done.

 

You won't have Ron Paul to kick around anymore, to paraphrase Nixon, he dropped out of the race.

 

I hope you're joking. And if you're joking.... it is bad form. But if your correct.....??????

Ron Paul's candidacy has received much ridicule, as have his supporters:

In New York, his name was ommitted from some ballots and protested at the primary with would be supporters/voters being told A LIE that he had dropped out of the running. They could not vote!

I, myself, received an annoymous phone call poll asking me to hit a key pad as to who I would vote for: All REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES were named in the poll except Ron Paul...... at the end of the list of which I was given a choice of 'other' and a key to hit, and the final choice was a still another key 'if you don't want to receive more calls like this. I chose 'other' but instead got a message that my name would be removed from the calling list. The poll was corrupt.

I don't have cable, but receive FOX, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC, and PBS. Of all the stations, PBS, has given more coverage to the campaign of Ron Paul than all the other networks combined.....or so it seems, when I watch news coverage on various of the other networks during different times of the day.
========================

As to the income tax: I've read a rather lengthy discussion explaining how the 16th ammendment was attached to the Constitution..... but not correctly ratified by the required number of states.

Ron Paul, it is my understanding, does support changes in the tax structure and doing away with the IRS. When he explains, it makes sense he is not necessarily talking about a sudden change. He has expressed his summation that the personal income tax COULD be stopped and the size of government reduced to what it was 10 years ago, and STILL there would be ample revenues to cover the budget.

As implied in the article posted by KenH, the IRS birth and implimentation is a product of the Federal Reserve Bank, which is Private.....not federal at all. A col House, had significant influence on President Woodrow Wilson regarding the war and also promoting plans to lift the country out of the financial crisis, which finaciers had created, with the desire to centralize the bank and control the wealth. (This pattern of raising a crisis to establish acceptance of restructure and control...... should be a RED FLAG to all to proceed cautiously and with wariness in the direction of change.... and not be moved by the emotioonal desperation of some for relief, or the enthusiatic saviors who propose they have the solutions.)

Since its establishment, the federal reserve has been part of the monetary manipulation and value. It was never established by law as it should have been with government control, oversight, and accounting to the people. Instead the movers and shakers are behind the scenes....... even your congressmen and senators don't know who makes up the circle which really runs the federal reserve bank. These industrial bankers control the rise and fall of prices, the rise and fall of commodities, of stock, and lately, seem to be influencing the precious metals market. They are the movers (manipulation and shifting) of wealth.

The one thing that is difficult for them to control is the holding of personal property in the form of real estate and land. As we see with the sub-prime loan fiasco, many people were led, by financiers' lowering qualification for debt, into believing they could afford purchases which exceeded reality: Futhermore, it was at a time when real estate seemed to be increasing in value, thus creating the promotion of debt to purchase high value with the idea that the increasing value of capital purchased would support refinancing..... if necessary, or conveyance with profit to transfer ownership and debt to another.......

Well this doesn't work too well if jobs are lost, payments run late or can't be paid, or if property values become static, or if one fails to qualify for new loans, or their adjustable rate or balloons kick in: The oddity is that our President pushes the House to help relieve the banking institutions which wanted and were responsible for taking on debtors risk. The financiers thought they had their bases covered by selling off the risk...... and did some fancy accounting which removes the risk from their liability and allows them to loan more money based upon their 'capital'. In turn, the derivatives failed and the banks stand in their own risk.

However, and very timely, a recent bankruptcy law is already in place, which does not offer the provisions of protecting the debtor against the recovery of debt, and conveinently it was passed before this financial fiasco came to a head. Can one see the potential for gains of property and money if the financiers haven't outsmarted their own plans? Can one see who is really being served by our government? ........ and understand the indebtedness of our government is a noose to yield up policies, regulations, taxes, and allowances to the owners of its debt.