Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gondring
The sixteenth didn't give Congress the power for income tax, either.

You are wrong. That might be your fringe opinion. But Christine is correct and you are wrong.

See the Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/547117/Sixteenth-Amendment
Sixteenth Amendment, amendment (1913) to the Constitution of the United States permitting a federal income tax.

Sixteenth Amendment: The Federal Income Tax
OUR DOCUMENTS: 100 MILESTONE DOCUMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Oxford University Press
http://books.google.com/books?id=qqDA6OGvhmUC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=%2B%22sixteenth+amendment+to+the+US+Constitution%22+%2B%22income+tax%22&source=bl&ots=DmpszhgITn&sig=CX1vuNsyIjEVn6Esng2ro9pcgBE&hl=en&ei=fGwCTdb8DY3AsAPs0JnIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%2B%22sixteenth%20amendment%20to%20the%20US%20Constitution%22%20%2B%22income%20tax%22&f=false

THE TAX FOUNDATION SAYS:
constitutional amendment to allow for a direct and unapportioned federal income tax.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24279.html

45 posted on 12/10/2010 10:36:56 AM PST by Moseley (http://www.MeetChristineODonnell.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Moseley

Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.

Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!


46 posted on 12/10/2010 4:15:42 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: Moseley

Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.

Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!


47 posted on 12/10/2010 4:16:04 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: Moseley

Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.

Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!


48 posted on 12/10/2010 4:16:28 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: Moseley

Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.

Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!


49 posted on 12/10/2010 4:16:34 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson