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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
My cite can fairly be summarized as “The OP’s position is complete and utter bullshit. (citations to controlling legal authority).”
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.
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:
Did you read my cite? Including the cases cited therein?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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?