The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-03-2010, 03:59 AM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
16th amendment

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. Soregarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
So isn't the 16th amendment nothing more than a fraud? Also didn't the supreme court rule, which it does on matters of the constitution that the 16th amendment did not give the government any new powers of taxation?
So what do you think about this?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-03-2010, 04:10 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Thoroughly debunked (with citations to controlling law) here. Scroll down to Section D, Contention 5.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-03-2010, 04:14 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Good point. The income tax is tax is illegal and you will be able to argue yourself out a long jail sentence. Further, you are so clever you will be the first one to do so. Others will follow, then government will fall!

You are Sparticus!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-03-2010, 05:14 AM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
The point being...the amendment was not lawful from the start stating the facts that so many states did not follow their constitution thus making amendment invalid. So we just let the federal reserve railroad this country because they greased a few palms and take our money. It goes to the government to pay our debt that we can never repay. They get the gold and we get a worthless piece of paper. Let see you try to produce a document in court and pass it off as a legal document without proper authentication and see how far you go with that. This was fraud from the begining no matter what laws or case's there are. The law was broken and the constitution stepped on plain and simple. Why do you think our presidents of old were trying to do back then...Stop the banks from taking control of our country. All these cases and IRS codes are after the fact. The amendment wasn't legal and was crammed down the throats of the american people.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-03-2010, 05:25 AM
Mk VII Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,287
Where are you going with this? Want to abolish income tax? Close the government down?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-03-2010, 05:30 AM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
I read the contention about ohio, but i guess we ignore the other 17 states that did not follow their own constitutions along with ohio and not following proper procedures to ratify on matters of the constitution. Facts are facts. We were a free nation before we let crooked politicians like philander knox pull the biggest fraud in history on the american people. We have just accepted it. Thank you sir may i have another, thank you sir may i have another.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-03-2010, 05:35 AM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Mk vll.....how did our government survive from 1776-1913? They did it without taxing a man's labor..corporate tax's are legal! your gas tax is legal among a hundred other tax's, yet they collect almost 4 times more in income tax (your wages earned for exchange of your hard work) than they do coporate tax's.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-03-2010, 06:37 AM
Noel Prosequi Noel Prosequi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In the Ning Nang Nong
Posts: 1,098
I'm guessing you're a gold standard guy as well from the "they get the gold and we get a worthless piece of paper"comment above. May I ask if you have any learning in the field of economics at all?

The standard trope in all these fantasies is that the world is populated by The Evil Politicians (who are small in number, conceived of as rapacious, self-serving and utterly inimical to all things honest and pure) and The People (who are vast in number, innocent, naive, childlike, honest and put-upon). You do realise this is the plot driver of every Robin Hood fantasy since time immemorial? Does that not tell you might perhaps have a rather simplistic idea of the world and how it operates?

In between are the Cassandras (such as yourself) who believe themselves to see The Truth, and who believe their heroic self-appointed task to be to unmask The Evil Politicians and to add to the list of virtues of The People that of insight into their true position of victimhood.

It is of the essence of the Cassandra that he (believes he) can see the truth but is not himself believed. This is essential, because at some level the Cassandra relies on the status quo that he realises would be destroyed if his beliefs were actually taken seriously. You do understand that America would collapse economically if ever your ideas were taken seriously, don't you? You do realise that everyone else knows this too, don't you? The world pre1913 is vastly different from the world today.

The idea of a perfect golden past ("we were a free nation before we let crooked politicians"....etc) whose bright memory is soiled by a debased present is another comforting but silly part of the fantasy.

What is troubling is the smallness of the world you seem to inhabit. You seem to think it is possible for a small handful of politicians to shove an unwanted amendment down the throats of The People as though the world were the size of the small town in Its a Wonderful Life and one or two Henry Potters were able to rule like kings. Ain't like that.

To believe that crooked politicians could pull a huge fraud on the American people and no-one noticed (except, of course, the remarkably perspicacious Cassandra and his tiny number of fellow travellers, who congratulate themselves on their genius) is silly. Courts have regularly ruled against the nonsense you advance every single time it has been advanced. Are you seriously suggesting that every single court is in on this giant fraud? If it were possible to engineer this, why bother with government at all? Whoever can do that is powerful beyond the need to hide behind a facade of democracy.

If "facts are facts", how do you know them to be so? Because you read them in some book by some nutjob like Benson or Schulz?

Last edited by Noel Prosequi; 06-03-2010 at 06:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-03-2010, 08:05 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
If the Internal Revenue Act was flawed, don't you think it would have been fixed by now? All of Them would want to fix it. As you pointed out Them are all-powerful.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-03-2010, 08:53 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Typical tax-evader fantasy drivel. I really wish the lot of you would find some empty acres somewhere in the Rockies or something and really go live your self-sufficiency dreams. We'll come over in the spring and clean up the bones.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-03-2010, 10:10 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 41,334
That people still expound this drivel is proof that our educational system has failed.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-03-2010, 10:45 AM
Omar Little Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
These arguments give conservatives a bad name! :FACEPALM:
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-03-2010, 10:55 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 26,292
See also Cecil's column on Ohio and the 16th Amendment.

Since I'm not seeing an actual factual question in the OP, I'm going to move this to GD.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:00 AM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
I got no answers...as usual. Nobody address the question...I live in a fairy tale or i am a tax evader but no answers....most sound like IRS agents defending the code..Then dispute what i had posted about the states involved who did not lawfully ratify the amendment! Of course we would expect the government to fix the flawed amendment by now ...I mean all that what i posted is dribble and i am sure some you could show me that by researching it yourself and proving me wrong. We have this illusion that paying your income tax is soooo AMERICAN! It was these same bankers who had been trying for years to slip in the back door to control our money suppy...They first succeded in 1791 calling themselves the 1st bank of america and recevied a 20 year charter until 1811 when congress voted not to re-new their charter. Thats why Nathan Mayer Rothschild was not amused and he states,

"Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war."
However the United States stands firm and the Charter is not renewed, which causes Nathan Mayer Rothschild to issue another threat,
"Teach those impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status."
Then in 1816 congress passes another bill permitting them to come back and they name themselves the 2nd bank of the united states after thousands of british and american soldiers had to die. After their 20 year charter was up president jackson threw them back out and did not renew their charter. Another bill was proposed and president tyler veoted another request for a charter after numerous death threats. In 1845 before president jackson died he is asked what he regarded his as greatest achievement. He replies without hesitation,

"I Killed The Bank,"
This is in reference to the fact he banished the Rothschilds Second Bank of the United States in 1836. By April 1862 $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln’s debt free money has been printed and distributed. He states of this,

“We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.”
That same year The Times of London publishes a story containing the following statement,
"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.
It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
What a novel idea for some of you PRO FEDERAL RESERVIST!
So it brings us to 1913 On March 4, Woodrow Wilson is elected the 28th President of the United States. Shortly after he is inaugurated, he is visited in the White House by Samuel Untermyer, of law firm, Guggenheim, Untermyer, and Marshall, who tries to blackmail him for the sum of $40,000 in relation to an affair Wilson had whilst he was a professor at Princeton University, with a fellow professor's wife.
President Wilson does not have the money, so Untermyer volunteers to pay the $40,000 out of his own pocket to the woman Wilson had had the affair with, on the condition that Wilson promise to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court a nominee to be recommended to President Wilson by Untermyer. Wilson agrees to this.

Jacob Schiff sets up the Anti Defamation League (ADL) in the United States. This organisation is formed to slander anyone who questions or challenges these banking elities as, "anti-semitic."

Strangely enough, the same year that they do this they also set up their last and current central bank in America, the Federal Reserve. Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated following the passing of the Federal Reserve Act on December 23,

"The Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized.......The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
It is important to note that the Federal Reserve is a private company, it is neither Federal nor does it have any Reserve. It is conservatively estimated that profits exceed $150 billion per year and the Federal Reserve has never once in its history published accounts. They will throw you in jail if you are not transparent about your income, how your EARNED it and what you did with it but yet to this day they have not done the same....But as good american's we shouldn't worry about that, just shut as do as they say not as they do..So all i get instead of evidence that my origanal post is not historically correct...I receive answers like go live in the rockies and live out my fantasies or i must be some gold standard guy. The dribble im hearing are from some of you in which not one addressed the validity in my original post. "The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..." S. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847 (US Dist. Ct. S.D., N.Y., 1917); U.S. 330 (1918)
The legislative history merely shows that the words 'from whatever source derived' of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to the federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable." [South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, (Brushaber), it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another." Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918.
I have always paid my tax's so being called a tax evader is not accurate. Instead of calling me childish names and making up fairy tales, although i did think the robin hook and cassandra's piece was quite entertaing. Silly me thinking that the government could pull off such dirty tricks is beyond comprehension. Ater all they only have your best intrest at heart. I just like to toss around these crazy ideas that i get from historical accounts just to piss some of you off. It makes for good conversation, atleast for some.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:16 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 49,530
A useful quotation for considering arguments such as that made by the OP: "Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:21 AM
Max Torque Max Torque is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 9,665
The entire OP appears to have been cribbed from a page belonging to the "We The People Foundation", an organization that counts "demanding a birth certificate from Barack Obama" among its various projects. The article has appeared elsewhere as well, dating back at least to 2005.

First, the SDMB frowns upon reprinting entire articles without retribution. It is at best fraudulent and at worst unlawful to repost an entire article stolen from somewhere else as your own work. Unless, I suppose, you object to the law of copyright, as well; I look forward to your next stolen article on the subject.

Second, if you don't want to be taken as a nut, don't associate yourself with nuts.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:24 AM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Taxes. The plural of "tax" is "taxes".
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:27 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by justhetruth View Post
I got no answers...as usual.
Nonsense. You got a pretty good answer in the very first response. You happen to not like the answer, but an answer was, in fact, provided.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:28 AM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Okay....the question is giving the facts ON RECORD that you will never hear anyone talk about is that the ratification process was not valid in many states making the 16th amendment not valid..Etiher the states (in question) lawfully ratified the amendment or not???? I can pick up books and read historical data and biographies on our leaders of the past. Here's a quote:Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth. Somehow we have lost the american spirit to question authority, instead it has been replaced by complacency. If our forefathers thought like (some) of you, we wouldnt be talking about this right now.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:31 AM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 10,095
Courts have expressly ruled that in approving constitutional amendments, states are performing a federal function, and that burdens imposed on that process by state constitutions are therefore ineffective. Courts have also ruled that errors in typography and transmission are irrelevant to the validity of an amendment. Defeating the substantive will of the people based on technicalities is anti-democratic.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:31 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by justhetruth View Post
Okay....the question is giving the facts ON RECORD that you will never hear anyone talk about is that the ratification process was not valid in many states making the 16th amendment not valid..Etiher the states (in question) lawfully ratified the amendment or not???? I can pick up books and read historical data and biographies on our leaders of the past. Here's a quote:Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth. Somehow we have lost the american spirit to question authority, instead it has been replaced by complacency. If our forefathers thought like (some) of you, we wouldnt be talking about this right now.
Every single court in this country that has considered your position has rejected it. Including SCOTUS. You lose. Game over. Sorry, but we're all out of lovely parting gifts.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:32 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
There it is..."the bankers". Even being so daring as to name a Rothschild. That's our little dash of Antisemitism! Got a copy of the Protocols on you, justhetruth?

Incidentally, any relation to justhink? I don't remember if he was a Sovereigner or not, though.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:42 AM
Rhodes Rhodes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 640
I find this discussion very odd. I'm not saying that I agree with justhetruth's claims or his ideology, but I agree with his complaint that no one has answered the questions in the OP. Oakminster and Colibri provided cites to challenge the notion that Ohio wasn't a US state, but the OP did not concern Ohio's statehood. Several have questioned the OP's motives and grammar, but not replied to the OP. This seemed like a good candidate for GQ initially (before justhetruth went off on a few tangential rants).

Tom Tildrum finally appears to be addressing the OP. Would he or someone else care to give more detail?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:45 AM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Thats fine gentlemen...I thank you for you response's and for some not being rude..If you return to the scene of the crime you will find case's such as Tennesse did not follow their state constitution prohibiting the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. So i guess i am wrong there and that laws can be ignored by those in power when they see fit. As in response to the BANKER, or ROTHSCHILDS. Do some history reading on the subject and you will find out what i was talking about. I do not discriminate against any person no matter what their color or ethnic background. Again thank you for your responses and educating me on what the majority see's as truth.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:45 AM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 41,334
What question in the OP? My eyes glazed over within a paragraph. Cut & paste OPs aren't worth slogging through, IMO. As for the questions at the end, the answers are no, no and I think the OP is woefully ill-informed.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:51 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
I find this discussion very odd. I'm not saying that I agree with justhetruth's claims or his ideology, but I agree with his complaint that no one has answered the questions in the OP. Oakminster and Colibri provided cites to challenge the notion that Ohio wasn't a US state,
My cite can fairly be summarized as "The OP's position is complete and utter bullshit. (citations to controlling legal authority)."
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:52 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Ah, more Idiot Legal Arguments!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:54 AM
Rhodes Rhodes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 640
The OP question, as I understood it, was: did Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois, and California ratify the 16th Amendment?

Tom Tildrum points out that a US Constitutional amendment apparently is immune to state laws regulating how the states will ratify. That's the closest we've seen to an answer to what was initially a General Question. Nearly every other post has been a hijack.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:55 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Wikipedia has a whole page on Tax protester constitutional arguments (as distinct from Tax protester statutory arguments) and, in addition that, a whole page on Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments.

Regarding Ohio's date-of-statehood:

Quote:
Ohio's statehood

Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because the United States Congress did not pass an official proclamation (Pub. L. 204) recognizing the date of Ohio's 1803 admission to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio and the Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 and therefore the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified.[6] The earliest reported court case where this argument was raised appears to be Ivey v. United States,[28] some sixty-three years after the ratification and 173 years after Ohio's admission as a state. This argument was rejected in the Ivey case, and has been uniformly rejected by the courts. See also McMullen v. United States,[29] McCoy v. Alexander,[30] Lorre v. Alexander,[31] McKenney v. Blumenthal[32] and Knoblauch v. Commissioner.[33]

In Baker v. Commissioner, the court stated:

Quote:
Petitioner's theory [that Ohio was not a state until 1953 and that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified] is based on the enactment of Pub. L. 204, ch. 337, 67 Stat. 407 (1953) relating to Ohio's Admission into the Union. As the legislative history of this Act makes clear, its purpose was to settle a burning debate as to the precise date upon which Ohio became one of the United States. S. Rept. No. 720 to accompany H.J. Res. 121 (Pub. L. 204), 82d Cong. 2d Sess. (1953). We have been cited to no authorities which indicate that Ohio became a state later than March 1, 1803, irrespective of Pub. L. 204.[34]
The argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified and variations of this argument have been officially identified as legally frivolous federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[35]

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 06-03-2010 at 11:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-03-2010, 11:56 AM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
The OP question, as I understood it, was: did Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois, and California ratify the 16th Amendment?

Tom Tildrum points out that a US Constitutional amendment apparently is immune to state laws regulating how the states will ratify. That's the closest we've seen to an answer to what was initially a General Question. Nearly every other post has been a hijack.
Did you read my cite? Including the cases cited therein?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:01 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Let me grant all of the OPs assertions as facts.

I would contend that too much time has passed to challenge them now. The law must have some kind of certainty or finality, or else every law every passed will be torn apart in courts for various reasons.

This suit could/(should?) have been brought in the early 1900s and these issues heard. The fact that they weren't and it has been long accepted as ratified means that the game is over, the T-shirts have been printed, and the record books updated. The commissioner has reviewed the results and approved them.

It's done.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:05 PM
Rhodes Rhodes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Did you read my cite? Including the cases cited therein?
Yes, well at least I skimmed it. It seemed to mostly address the issue of Ohio's statehood. On closer examination, I think it is saying that anyone who challenges the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment is subject to a fine for bring up frivilous lawsuits.

I am not a lawyer, so I don't understand most of your cite. I'm not a tax protester, either. I was just curious to see the OP refuted in layman's terms. You have an excellent history on the SDMB of explaining legal issues to the ignorant such as me. I was hoping for more of the same.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:05 PM
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
The OP question, as I understood it, was: did Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois, and California ratify the 16th Amendment?
The answer is that all of this shit has been brought through the courts up to and including the Supreme Court and found to be without merit. Therefore it is the law. An argument can be made that the courts made the incorrect decision but that's just academic.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:11 PM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
That was pretty simple answer and a very acceptable one. I believe that you are right and a wrong should have been objected many years ago. Instead i got snide, demeaning comments.(not from all post). But my point was that their were unlawful ratifications by some of the states on amending the constitution according to their own states constitution. Like Bush said and i quote: It's just a god damn piece of paper!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:12 PM
J Cubed J Cubed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
But what is your question or argument? Did some states and the federal government play fast and loose with the amendment process? Sure; it was a hundred years ago. But every court decision since then has upheld the federal government's right to collect income tax. They even took down Wesley Snipes. We attacked Iraq under false pretense, and I don't see that fact pulling us out of the war any faster.

Are you arguing that it sucks that the government gets some of your income? Then stop earning money. Or move to another country. Or become wealthy enough to shelter your money better. Are you arguing that people in power will do things to maintain that power? No shit.

I will agree with you on one thing: the government has no right to collect "tax's". However, you are still on the hook for "taxes".
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:19 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 9,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by justhetruth View Post
That was pretty simple answer and a very acceptable one. I believe that you are right and a wrong should have been objected many years ago. Instead i got snide, demeaning comments.(not from all post). But my point was that their were unlawful ratifications by some of the states on amending the constitution according to their own states constitution. Like Bush said and i quote: It's just a god damn piece of paper!
Back up and read the explanation that the federal rules trump the state's rules in matters pertaining to the amendment of the federal constitution.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:21 PM
BrightNShiny BrightNShiny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Here's a link to Hawke v. Smith. It's a short ruling, so it should be fairly easy to read. It lays out the Supreme Court's reasoning behind why state constitutional restrictions on legislative ratification of amendments are inoperative.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:22 PM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
why would i move to another coutry when all i was saying that the ratification process on alot the states were by unlawful means according to their own state's constitution. I do pay my taxes! I guess we are not supposed to question anything for fear of ridicule. Its been many years since and we have to accept the fact that we were hijacked in the cover of night so to speak on a christmas break when most politician's were home with their famillies. Philander Knox was into big a hurry to pass the amendment to worry about any state laws being violated. I served in the military and love my country. Being able to agree to disagress is what is so great about our country..One day we may not have that right.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:33 PM
BrightNShiny BrightNShiny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by justhetruth View Post
why would i move to another coutry when all i was saying that the ratification process on alot the states were by unlawful means according to their own state's constitution. I do pay my taxes! I guess we are not supposed to question anything for fear of ridicule. Its been many years since and we have to accept the fact that we were hijacked in the cover of night so to speak on a christmas break when most politician's were home with their famillies. Philander Knox was into big a hurry to pass the amendment to worry about any state laws being violated. I served in the military and love my country. Being able to agree to disagress is what is so great about our country..One day we may not have that right.
The court system has had ample opportunity to rule on the validity of the 16th Amendment. It's not getting overturned by the courts anytime soon. If you don't like income taxes, your choices at this point are to try and get an amendment passed or try to get Congress to remove the taxes. Every argument you will end up putting up in this thread about the amendment's validity probably has a court ruling that deals with it already. You might want to shift to a political debate about what kind of taxes the US should impose rather than trying to make legal arguments about a subject which is well-settled law.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:38 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 17,075
If the 16th Amendment was never really ratified correctly, why didn't anyone notice back at the time? I mean, if Tennessee didn't really ratify the amendment, then when Congress declared that Tennessee had ratified the Amendment why didn't the people of Tennessee object? Why didn't they notice?

If at the time the people of Tennessee (and so on) intended to ratify the Amendment, and they were counted as ratifying the Amendment, and the Amendment was adopted without fuss, the Amendment really was ratified.

Nitpicking the decision now won't make the decision go away, nor will it make the 16th Amendment null and void. If as you say the bankers control everything and all the judges and cops and politicans and lawyers will back them up, well, then you're screwed. Even if you could somehow prove that the 16th Amendment was invalid, all that would happen is that the judges and lawyers would ignore you.

If we really live under tyranny, you have to pay your taxes because otherwise the tyrants will put you in jail. You can't point out to the crooked judges and lawyers that the law books say that you're innocent, they'll kill you anyway because they don't care about the law.

So whatever the "real" status of the 16th Amendment, if you don't pay your taxes the courts aren't going to listen to your arguments, it's very clear that they will pretend the 16th Amendment is the law, and you'll go to jail.

And again, if it was such a fraud (according to you only a few states actually ratified it, let alone a supermajority!), why didn't people notice at the time? They were free sovereign citizens back then, before the bankers enslaved them, and they didn't notice? If people don't notice the difference between slavery and freedom, then what's the difference?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:45 PM
BrightNShiny BrightNShiny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Link to Leser v. Garnett. Again, a short ruling and should be easy to read. As a bonus, this one deals explicitly with Tennessee's constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:51 PM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Since i was not alive back then i cannot really answer why the people didnt get pissed off..maybe there are historical accounts that could document that. But as we know today, protesting only get's you labeled and you would be squashed like a bug. Its just ashame that our forefathers warned us about the likes of the federal reserve and giving them control was not part of their agenda. Corporate taxes are legal in the constitution. Taxes were what you made on gains, not your labor. You put your time and effort into a job in exchange for money. That is not gains, you worked for that. We were truly a free nation til 1913. Our government had their own currency that worked just fine! Since the federal reserve took over and there is nothing american about them, they took over our currency and printed it at will and loaned it to our government with intrest. How damn dumb was that. Well anyways, its been put to rest and the rest as they say is history.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:54 PM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Thanks brightnshiny!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:54 PM
BrightNShiny BrightNShiny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Ack. Sorry. The last case deals with Tenessee's procedural rules. It deals with state constitutional restrictions generally.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Oakminster Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by justhetruth View Post
We were truly a free nation til 1913.
Rosa Parks would probably disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:56 PM
BrightNShiny BrightNShiny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by justhetruth View Post
Thanks brightnshiny!
No problem.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:57 PM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 41,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
If as you say the bankers control everything and all the judges and cops and politicans and lawyers will back them up, well, then you're screwed. Even if you could somehow prove that the 16th Amendment was invalid, all that would happen is that the judges and lawyers would ignore you.
The solution, of course, is to become a lawyer, cop or judge. Because then you won't have to pay taxes or anything, and they'll be forced to tell you all the secrets of the Universal Governing Cabal. Of course, you'll have to get circumcised first...

Last edited by silenus; 06-03-2010 at 12:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:57 PM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Yeah, your right there oak....Im sure the american indian's feel the same.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-03-2010, 12:58 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
I find this discussion very odd. I'm not saying that I agree with justhetruth's claims or his ideology, but I agree with his complaint that no one has answered the questions in the OP. Oakminster and Colibri provided cites to challenge the notion that Ohio wasn't a US state, but the OP did not concern Ohio's statehood. Several have questioned the OP's motives and grammar, but not replied to the OP. This seemed like a good candidate for GQ initially (before justhetruth went off on a few tangential rants).

Tom Tildrum finally appears to be addressing the OP. Would he or someone else care to give more detail?
The OP presented an argument that could be countered with readily available information. Then he asked a question: "So what do you think about this?"

Looks like people responded to his question. Why is he complaining?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-03-2010, 01:03 PM
justhetruth justhetruth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Sorry if you thought i was complaining...i didnt feel at the time my question about the ratification process on a state level was legal in (some states) was addressed. My intention was not to join this group to make enemies, but rather converse. Whether im right or wrong i guess is the whole point of being here to get a different perspective on things.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.