Ron Paul: 13th Amendment bans income tax

Youtube ^ | June 27, 2010 | RidleyReport

[citizenredstater9271]

Who agrees and who disagrees with Dr. Paul? I would like to see income tax abolished (it is socialism light) but what say other Freepers? Watch the video of course.

[tisket]

Yes, it is. We were going to move there a number of years ago and got kind of discouraged by the change there. Still, they do have the best tax laws. I kind of always wondered how some states can get along just fine with no state income tax and others, like CA, collect piles of money and are always broke.

[citizenredstater9271]

Look up RidleyReport. He has a lot of videos.

Ridley Report

[citizenredstater9271]

Proof please.

[OldDeckHand]

"Dr. Paul explains everything."

Yes, I'm sure he does.

[citizenredstater9271]

WHAT??? Dr. Paul is 100% pro-life. He has never come out in support of abortion.

[tisket]

The 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Period.

No it wasn't.

[Oceander]

No you don’t. If you want to argue the point you’ll abide by the basic requirements of argument. You stated the proposition that the 16th Amendment was not ratified - the onus is on you to provide proof, or at the least a plausible argument - that it was not. The proponent of a contested proposition is obliged to justify that proposition; it’s detractors are not obligated to prove a negative.

So, proof please.

[citizenredstater9271]

Would you happen to know how hard it is to live in NEw Hampshire? How much does a home cost?

[citizenredstater9271]

Watch the video from start to finish. Dr. Paul makes a clear-cut case for income tax being 100% unconstitutional and banned by the 13th amendment.

[hellbender]

New Hampster may have no income tax or sales tax, but otherwise their taxes are like something written by a populist. They do tax so-called “unearned” income, like interest and dividends. That’s what most retired people live on. So you need to take a close look at total tax levels as they affect you.

[hellbender]

Thanks to that dope G. W. Bush, the Demonrats swept into the Gov’s office and took control of the legislature in New Hampster. We need people like you to take the place back. Yes there are many more libs than there used to be, but it is still better than any New England state. You would have to go about 1000 mi. to find a state with proportionately more conservatives.

[tisket]

We visited a number of years ago - but take a quick look at craigslist.com - property in NH for sale. We live in CA right now and just about ANYTHING is cheaper. Portsmouth is the biggest city, on the coast and just above Boston, and very liberal. Seems Boston’s stench has spread. . . We looked into Keene, on the Vermont side of the state (but only an eye blink from the coast by CA standards) and even though there is a state college there, it was more conservative. I still think highly of NH and would enjoy living there for a time.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Then we can assume you do not file a 1040 each year, since it’s not Constitutionally required?

[tisket]

Who is "we"?

And why would this collective "we" assume that based on the current conversation?

[phockthis]

sfl

[tisket]

I knew it had gotten worse over the years. Too bad.

[EternalVigilance]

Ron Paul believes that states can allow abortion if they want to.

That is in direct contradiction to God’s Law, the Natural Law, and the foundational principles of our nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence. It is contrary to ALL of the self-stated purposes of the US Constitution as found in the Preamble, and the explicit provisions of the Fifth, the Eighth, and the Fourteenth Amendments.

Even the infamous Judge Blackmun, the author of the Roe vs. Wade majority opinion, admitted in the text of the opinion itself that if the “fetus,” or baby, is a PERSON, they are “OF COURSE” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a very real sense, Ron Paul is worse than Blackmun. He admits they are persons and says they can still be killed if the state so desires. Blackmun dehumanized the child and pretended that they weren’t persons. He at least maintained a fig leaf, whereas Ron Paul is constitutionally and morally buck naked.

[HapaxLegamenon]

Okay but isn’t the 16th unconstitutional?

The whole purpose of an amendment is to change the constitution. So if the income tax was unconstitutional before, the 16th changes it in such a way to now allow it. Of course this depends on the amendment having been ratified lawfully according to the dictates of the constitution in the first place.

[Oceander]

Yes it was. What, are you going to pull the old canard about there being typos and misspellings and, God forbid, different wordings in the various written resolutions the various states used when they ratified the Act of Congress?

Puhleese. Such an elementary mistake - confusing and conflating ratification of an act with the act itself. Let's start with a workable definition of the term "ratify" as used in legal documents, such as the one here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ratify

Now, here's what that definition, in relevant part, says:

"to confirm and adopt the act of another even though it was not approved beforehand. Example: An employee for Holsinger's Hardware orders carpentry equipment from Phillips Screws and Nails although the employee was not authorized to buy anything. The president of Holsinger's ratifies the deal when Phillips delivers the order."

It ought to be immediately apparent that the principal who ratifies the act of the agent need not parrot verbatim, what the agent did, and in fact, need not even speak, as the example given is that of implicit ratification - the principal implicitly ratifies the act of the agent by accepting the benefits thereof.

Thus, when the various state legislatures ratified the 16th Amendment, all that was legally necessary was that they indicate that they understood the substance of what Congress had done, and that they clearly and unmistakably assented to the act that Congress had passed. They were not required to parrot the precise words that Congress used when it acted - it was the passage of the act by Congress, not the ratification of that act by the state legislatures that gave us the legally operative language of the Amendment - thus, they could have, for example, simply made an unmistakeable reference to the Act of Congress they were ratifying by citing to the relevant portion of the Statutes at Large, and then stated that they were ratifying the provisions enacted by Congress as set forth in the statute so cited.

Since none of the different state ratification resolutions contain language that is necessarily in conflict with the oeprative legal language enacted by Congress, and since the language contained in each evidences the fact that all of the various legislatures knew what the substance of that Congressional enactment was and were fullfilling their constitutional role to ratify the operative language enacted by Congress, it follows that the various misspellings, typos, and variations on the language actually passed by Congress are totally incapable of nullifying the fact that a sufficient number of state legislatures ratified - that is, gave their consent to the prior Act of Congress - the 16th Amendment.

QED

[Myrddin]

Even if it did, then the 16th amendment repealed the 13th.

No it didn't. That's why Paul's assertion is valid. There is a conflict. The 13th outlawed slavery. The 16th has been abused to the point where we have become slaves to the government. The 16th was ill conceived. There is no limit on how much tax can be imposed, nor does it comply with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is wrong to lay unequal burdens upon citizens. It is wrong to memorialize a disincentive to success in the Constitution. A progressive tax is a disincentive to succeed.