$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Roccland', '
')The 16th Amendment was never radified with a 3/4 majority.
from wiki:
PeakOil is You
NOT GUILTY - IRS on the ropes!!!
Re: NOT GUILTY - IRS on the ropes!!!
by PenultimateManStanding » Tue 17 Jul 2007, 21:38:27
Tax protester arguments regarding ratification
The article Tax protester constitutional arguments covers this topic in considerably more detail, including details on the specific arguments made against ratification.
Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified." One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g., semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: NOT GUILTY - IRS on the ropes!!!
by TWilliam » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 00:18:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ')I looked into this argument and here is the text from the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."
PMS, one of the things most "lay" people fail to understand regarding jurisprudence, is that words frequently have distinctly different meanings within the context of law than they do in "common usage". One such example is the word "source". In the IRS tax code, "source" has a very narrow and strictly defined meaning which is decidedly NOT "wherever you get it from".
Another example I cited in a previous post, and the U.S. Supreme Court itself has repeatedly ruled that "wages" are NOT "income". References to "gains from labor" are in reference to a business owner's profits derived from the labor of his/her employees, not to the wages said employees receive. In Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated: "[a]lthough the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact,' [ . . . ] it can label a thing income and tax it, so long as it acts within its constitutional authority...". This is part of how "wages" become "income" and thus susceptible to taxation; when you enter an amount on that line of a 1040 form that asks you to enter "wages, salaries, tips, etc.", you are personally declaring those monies to be an income, thus they become labeled as such in the eyes of the law and are then legally taxable. But it is only your willing declaration that makes them so.
This is precisely the kind of deceptive bullsh*t that enables these usurpers to rob people blind with the willing consent of those so deceived.
Once again, an exchange is NOT a gain.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.
Rejected, yes. Disproved, no.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
-
TWilliam - Expert
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Re: NOT GUILTY - IRS on the ropes!!!
by PenultimateManStanding » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 00:48:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '
')PMS, one of the things most "lay" people fail to understand regarding jurisprudence, is that words frequently have distinctly different meanings within the context of law than they do in "common usage". One such example is the word "source". In the IRS tax code, "source" has a very narrow and strictly defined meaning which is decidedly NOT "wherever you get it from".
perhaps you could quote from the IRS code the "source" of this peculiar interpretation of the word. Show me this 'narrow and strictly defined meaning'. Otherwise I'll will assume that you're just blowing smoke you picked up from weird websites.')PMS, one of the things most "lay" people fail to understand regarding jurisprudence, is that words frequently have distinctly different meanings within the context of law than they do in "common usage". One such example is the word "source". In the IRS tax code, "source" has a very narrow and strictly defined meaning which is decidedly NOT "wherever you get it from".
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
