Posted on 10/21/2005 2:44:50 AM PDT by fifthvirginia
Has your "representative" in Congress ever told you that no law compels a work-eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9 (or their equivalent) nor disclose a Social Security number as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Just TRY to be a business that participates in a tax protest, or does not file a Quarterly. Just try it.
Yep- it comes down to the legislature of Kentucky, (I think it was KY) and the specific events that took place during the ratification process that day. Personally, I don't believe that it was ever really ratified- but what am I gonna do? Move to Ruby Ridge? lol
Yes, the law is a mess. Sadly it is in such a mess that it is easy for some people to fail to see the legal authority to levy and collect a tax on incomes actually exists.
The Congress and the Executive branches have acted for several generations on the assumption that such authority does exist. Indeed, many citizens sit in Federal prison at this very moment for violation of the law that may or may not be legally valid.
It would be such an easy thing for Congress to fix the law- to clarify the sections that seemingly fail to properly state tax liability and authority. Yet Congress doesn't bother to do so, even while they spend monies collected by this broken body of laws. What is the dynamic here?
Sadly, this failure only serves to corrode respect for the law and respect for those who write it. We must have a functioning government and such a government must have funding. Meanwhile the tyrrany continues. The individual income tax destroys financial privacy by making every single private exchange of anything of value between any two people a potentially taxable event and therefore of interest to those charge with insuring compliance with the law. People have their wages and property seized under imperfect authority and unclear law when it doesn't really have to be that way.
I would add that in the event someone is able to simply explain how taxes are not due and payable to such an extent that some Court would agree, how many minutes would pass before Congress would act to retroactively repair that breach in the law?
This mess clearly benefits some party or else it would have been fixed long ago.
Have you seen the records of each of the states version of the 16th amendment as it was ratified? Do you know the constitutional requirement for ratification?
Huh? What are you talking about? If you think this moonbat (Kidd) has advice worth taking, by all means go ahead and take it. I strongly suspect you'll be sorry but be my guest.
BTW, just exactly how does a Liberal debate?
So, are you claiming that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified and the fact that it was ratified isn't settled law ?
fifteenth
YES!
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
There apparently were several states who had questionable ratification procedures regarding the 16th Amendment. Kentucky was one of them. On the day that Kentucky was supposed to have ratified the 16th Amendment, State Legislature records show it was not in session.
15th
Correction
April 15, June 15, Sept 15, Jan 15
What was repealed?
The obligation employers have to withhold tax from employees are anyone who is an independent that doesn't present a w-9?
That is pure nonsense.
"1942, Congress passes the Victory Tax under Constitutional authority to support the WWII effort. President Roosevelt proposes a voluntary tax withholding program allowing workers across the nation to pay the tax in installments. "
Think about this for a minute. In 1942 would you be willing to pay your 1941 tax due on April 15 AND all your 1942 tax due during the 1942 year. That is two taxbills in one year.
So how was it done? If my memory serves correctly, the 1941 tax bill was forgiven in order to get the cash flow of witholding started.
How many of us would sign on with that deal..........to get the shorterm gain and not understand the long term impact. We got snookered.
"1942, Congress passes the Victory Tax under Constitutional authority to support the WWII effort. President Roosevelt proposes a voluntary tax withholding program allowing workers across the nation to pay the tax in installments. "
Think about this for a minute. In 1942 would you be willing to pay your 1941 tax due on April 15 AND all your 1942 tax due during the 1942 year. That is two taxbills in one year.
So how was it done? If my memory serves correctly, the 1941 tax bill was forgiven in order to get the cash flow of witholding started.
How many of us would sign on with that deal..........to get the shorterm gain and not understand the long term impact. We got snookered.
The Fed provides a very important service to Banks and you, whether you know it or not. The Fed prevents bank panics and recession/depressions from occurring, a regular event prior to its inception. This is done in part by stabilizing the currency, and guaranteeing its availability when you decide to withdraw your money.
The problems with the gold standard is that there is not enough of it to build any real wealth, and that it is not a portable currency, just to name 2 that come to mind.
I think that the Fed has done a great job in making the US dollar one of the most stable in the world.
1895: In Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, the Supreme Court rules that general income taxes are unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this day, the ruling has not been over-turned.
Unfortunately irrelavant even according to Pollock and prior Supeme Court decisions, taxing of wages, salaries, fees, etc. for occupations, trades, professions were upheld as constitutional.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax." "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves." "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
- "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."
- "If that[rents from land] be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress."
- "We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. "
- Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
- Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.
16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.
Since the 16th Amendment covered the situation of returns from investments and real estate and the rest has always been considered Constitutionally taxable;
Figure on bending over until such time as Congress decides to repeal the current tax law and replace it with something else.
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
- "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "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, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
- "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."
- "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
- The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
- "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:
What's your take on this info in post 7? I've seen it before, but...
As above in comment #37 above, the Supreme Court is clear about what the Congress may do with respect to the taxes it implements:
LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
- "It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception, and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion."
PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433
- "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."
BARAL v. UNITED STATES, 172 F. 3d 918; affirmed SCOTUS 98-1667 (Feb 22, 2000)
- "Contrary to Baral's claim, the withholding tax and estimated tax are not taxes in their own right (separate from the income tax), that are converted into income tax only on the income tax return. Rather, they are methods for collecting income taxes."
Thanks. I figured you would affirm the depressing truth. :)
I hate the IRS.
LOL.
Benson is a convicted felon and his "findings" and book are tax protestor garbage. Benson's failed criminal appeal.
His credentials are mighty impressive, too. Ex-steelworker, bartender and undercover snitch for the Illinois Department of Revenue when they were after untaxed cigarettes from Indiana.
Did I mention that, in addition to being a convicted tax-felon, he's also been enjoined from selling his tax protester crap? And let's not forget that he was also convicted of defrauding the Social Security Administration. Something about disability payments he wasn't entitled to. What a surprise, huh?
Not to mention that every court which has ever considered this "16th Amendment wasn't ratified" stuff has rejected it.
Yup, he and his "findings" are real winners. If you're looking for penalties, interest and perhaps a free stay at the greybar motel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.