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.

[Oceander]

The 13th Amendment is utterly incapable of having any effect on the 16th Amendment - later in time controls. To the extent that there is an inconsistency between the 13th Amendment and the 16th Amendment, the 16th Amendment wins, hands down.

[citizenredstater9271]

Okay. But wasn’t the 16th never properly ratified? I’ve heard Dr. Paul mention this.

[Stentor]

Dr. Paul explains everything.

The Martians blew up the World Trade Center?

[citizenredstater9271]

I will keep saying it: watch the original video. Dr. Paul explains everything.

I don't agree with Dr. Paul on everything but some things he's right about. Income tax is one of them.

[guitarplayer1953]

the 16th was not passes legally. There is evidence of states that voted no were registered as yes and some states changed the wording of the amendment which made it illegal to do so.

[tisket]

So, in other words, even though Congress never made the 16th Amendment into actual law, through the proper number of votes, since they went and collected the money and benefited from said collection of funds, then it was OK.

Do you even understand what you posted?

[citizenredstater9271]

That's why Paul's assertion is valid. There is a conflict. The 13th outlawed slavery.

Yes and income tax IS slavery.

[citizenredstater9271]

The Martians blew up the World Trade Center?

When did Dr. Paul EVER say 9/11 wasn't done by Muslim terrorists? And what does that have to do with taxes?

[Undocumented_capitalist]

How does the country operate without tax?
WHo pays for defense, police, roads, customs, immigration control, import/export of goods, prisons, etc etc?

[moonhawk]

I listened twice and still didn’t hear anything about the thirteenth amendment. Is he talking about the current or the original thirteenth amendment?

[The Comedian]

Did you even watch the video?

How dare you challenge a Paulophobe with such an implied indictment. Their minds are made up. Ron Paul is a Truther and an isolationist and a something something something, didn't you know, you Paultard?

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[tisket]

The 13th Amendment is utterly incapable of having any effect on the 16th Amendment - later in time controls. To the extent that there is an inconsistency between the 13th Amendment and the 16th Amendment, the 16th Amendment wins, hands down.

Again, you are mistaken. The Constitution cannot contrdict itself - it is one of the basic tenets of law. Since the 13th came first, it is the 16th that must be corrected to not contradict it.

If you're pro-tax, why not just come out and say so?

[citizenredstater9271]

WHo pays for defense, police, roads, customs, immigration control, import/export of goods, prisons, etc etc?

Private enterprise? I have a feeling more businesses would be doing business if it weren't for government taxation via the Fed. Businesses do things better then the gov. anyway. Case-in-point private schools work better than public schools.

[Oceander]

No, he's not. Are you saying that the 13th Amendment, without so much as a by-your-leave, impliedly amended Article V of the Constitution, which reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, ... which ... 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, ..."

The 13th Amendment, in its entirety, reads as follows:

"Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Now, please show me where that language operates to modify, alter, repeal, or limit the language of Article V of the Constitution.

Until you do, since such modification, alteration, repeal, or limitation is not evident from the face of the language of the 13th Amendment itself, we must continue to operate on the basis that Article V of the Constitution says what it means and means what it says - that is, we must follow the plain meaning of the words as written.

In particular, that means that the Congress - as it did - was within its rights and powers to propose the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, and that the legislatures of 3/4s of the states - as they did - were within their rights and powers to ratify - that is to give their consent to the operative legal language proposed by Congress alone - the 16th Amendment, after which it became "valid to all intents and purposes, as part of [the] Constitution ...."

So, unless you can show how the 13th Amendment necessarily modified, altered, repealed, or limited the plain meaning of the language of Article V of the Constitution, Dr. Paul's argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[tisket]

How does the country operate without tax? WHo pays for defense, police, roads, customs, immigration control, import/export of goods, prisons, etc etc?

It did ok for 136 years without an income tax. Money was usually raised through Bond Issues, where it was put to a vote. This however, was not a certain way of getting cash for all their tyrannical schemes fast enough, so in 1912 - wham! - the income tax - pay up bud!

[citizenredstater9271]

It doesn’t discount for the fact that TAXES ARE SLAVERY which the 13th amendment BANS.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Me and others who think the whole “16th Amendment is unconstitutional” argument is bunk.

But if it makes you feel better, then I can assume you do not file a 1040?

[Oceander]

Again, you are mistaken. The Constitution cannot contrdict itself - it is one of the basic tenets of law. Since the 13th came first, it is the 16th that must be corrected to not contradict it. If you're pro-tax, why not just come out and say so?

Ahh, so, since the Amendment that imposed Prohibition came first, the Amendment that repealed Prohibition must not have accomplished what we all have been thinking it did - since the Amendment imposing Prohibition came first, it must be the amendment that repealed Prohibition that is in need of correction, at least if we follow your "argument."

"Pro-tax" - why, if I am then I'm in very fine company, as the Founders were all pro-tax themselves, too. Or haven't you read those bits of the original Constitution that granted Congress the power to tax, subject only to two limitations, that all direct taxes (being property taxes and head, or capitation, taxes) be apportioned among the states according to the enumeration of the census, and all other taxes being imposed with uniform rates.

Speaking of which, I don't suppose you've ever actually read the Income Tax Cases - the two Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. cases that held the last pre-amendment income tax unconstititional, have you? If you had, you'd know that under the holding of those two cases, the only income Congress could not have taxed with an income tax like the one we have today would be income derived from real property or personal property; with respect to all other income - including most particularly wages - the Supreme Court in those two cases explicitly held that such other types of income, such as wages, could be taxed under the Constitution so long as the rates imposed were uniform.

So, if one were to succeed at the fools' errand of repealing the 16th Amendment, wages, salaries, and compensation for services rendered would still be subject to the Internal Revenue Code and the taxes imposed thereunder; the only income that would no longer be subject to tax under the Internal Revenue Code would be capital gains, rents and royalties from real property, and income derived from capital assets, such as interest paid on loans extended, dividends on shares of stock held, and the like.

Not a very pretty picture if you ask me.

[onona]

Constitutional Argument Ping !

[Stentor]

When did Dr. Paul EVER say 9/11 wasn't done by Muslim terrorists? And what does that have to do with taxes?

I apologize. The Martians ratified the 16th Amendment and are going to be interviewed by Alex Jones and Borat.