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.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I think he means the 16th amendment wasn’t ratified which is true but the courts act that it was so it doesn’t really matter at this point.

[tisket]

http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta20001.htm

How about you just speak for yourself.

"Thinking it's bunk doesn't make it bunk.

[Oceander]

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

Huh?

Taxation is not, ipso facto, slavery. And even if it were, the sad fact of the matter remains that whatever the 13th Amendment might have wrought, any later amendment, including the 16th Amendment, could undo. That is the nature of the amendment process of the Constitution.

It really isn't that complicated - read the plain language of the Constitution itself, and stop trying to come up with penumbrae and other liberal-type glosses on that language to cover up for the multitude of sins the people of a democratic republic are perfectly entitled to impose on themselves, so long as they followed the established procedure.

If Dr. Paul is going to continue down this ignominious path, instead of trying to force us to face the fact that we, the voters, as a collective whole, have done some very stupid things recently by entrusting the powers granted Congress under the Constitution to a bunch of thuggish fascists such as we have in the so-called Democrat Party, then he is going to be doing a great disservice to all of us.

[tisket]

Again, you are confusing what was actually passed into law by a majority vote in Congress versus what was only thought of as law by carrying out it's provisions and benefiting from the results of those actions. Read your own first post - you state it very clearly there yourself.

As for your Prohibition argument - you are comparing apples and oranges. The Prohibition legal situation was properly carried out - the taxation situation wasn't.

[tisket]

Dr. Paul is speaking about a specific legal circumstance regarding taxation, not ALL taxation. Why don’t you stick to the point.

[citizenredstater9271]

What does Alex Jones or Borat have to do with this?

[citizenredstater9271]

You tell 'em.

I would like to know how many people on this thread actually watched the video. We're supposed to be discussing the video's content before debating.

Again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu4ViaV_dHQ

[EternalVigilance]

I would like to know how many people on this thread actually watched the video.

I would like to know if you read my last post to you.

Or, like Ron Paul, do you also pretend that the Fourteenth Amendment, with its explicit protection of innocent human life and the requirement that the states provide for the equal protection of the laws for all persons, doesn't exist? Or, like some Paulites argue, was it also "not properly ratified"?

[citizenredstater9271]

i read your last post. No I don’t agree states should have abortion but the Constitution is the COnstitution.

[EternalVigilance]

I don’t agree states should have abortion but the Constitution is the COnstitution.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The Constitution explicitly requires the states, all the states, to protect innocent human life and to provide for the equal protection of the laws to all persons.

It also states as its crowning purpose "to secure the Blessings of Liberty TO POSTERITY."

[coon2000]

Local governments pay for police, roads and prisons. Collectively we pay for defense and to keep illegals out. The market handles imports and exports.

Kill pirates and destroy anyone who harms any of the united States. Protect friendly countries. Tell the rest of the world to FO.

[citizenredstater9271]

Okay but the income tax is an infringement on our right to liberty. Ron Paul realizes that.

[EternalVigilance]

It is an infringement. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t meet the constitutional test.

All the energy the tax protesters expend attacking the Sixteenth Amendment would be much better spent working to repeal it.

But, if you must play this fruitless game, you’d be forther ahead attacking the current system on Fifth Amendment self-incrimination grounds.

Alan Keyes once said that if he were elected president he would put a Miranda warning on every 1040 form, while working to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and dismantle the IRS.

[citizenredstater9271]

So would you say Dr. Paul would make a good president? This is off-topic but what say you?

[EternalVigilance]

I think the involuntary servitude Thirteenth Amendment argument against a system of income tax is silly, by the way. Our original Constitution envisaged taxes.

The only way you could make that argument stick is by arguing against tax rates that became confiscatory. And that wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do with whatever particular system you were using to collect it. It would have to do with the rate.

[dragnet2]

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

Are you kidding?

I'd bet a cup of coffee 20 percent of the people posting here are government bureaucrat employees on the government tax paid payroll.

[olrtex]

“The 16th was never ratified - but being the feds, they just went ahead with collecting the money anyway.”

Care to offer some support for that assertion?

This thread has some posters that are loonier than Ron Paul (”loonier than Ron Paul”—a phrase I thought I would never type).

[ejonesie22]

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."

(ouch)

[EternalVigilance]

No, I think he would be a horrible president. His foreign policy views are very much like Barack Obama’s. He has no respect for the protection of the unalienable rights of all individuals, as I’ve already explained. He has led many astray on that most important thing. And he is a Libertarian, not a conservative.

[citizenredstater9271]

Dr. Paul isn’t loony. If you listened to that man for a second youd realize he supports absolute individualist freedom and liberty. He wants to go back to the original constitution and not the type of gov. the bureaucrats have created by ripping the constitution as much as they can.