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.
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.
Thanks brightnshiny!
Ack. Sorry. The last case deals with Tenessee’s procedural rules. It deals with state constitutional restrictions generally.
Rosa Parks would probably disagree.
No problem.
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…
Yeah, your right there oak…Im sure the american indian’s feel the same.
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?
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.
N.B.: The wisdom/legitimacy of federal income taxation and the wisdom/legitimacy of having a Federal Reserve are completely different issues. The OP seems to be conflating them somehow.
The second part of what you say is true…originally that was not the issue, it just went into that direction because of me…The latter was a different topic altogether. Sorry for the confusion.
Plus you’re conflating the Federal Reserve Bank with the income tax. They have nothing to do with each other. The 16th Amendment didn’t create the Fed, it authorized the income tax. See, the government wanted to levy an income tax, but there was a worry that an income tax might violate the apportionment clause of the Constitution. No problem, they just passed the 16th amendment to lay those worries to rest and explicitly constitutionalize the income tax.
And the big problem with arguing that the 16th amendment is invalid, is that if the courts somehow ruled it was invalid (which they won’t by the way), all that would happen is that we’d re-ratify it, and then the income tax would be constitutional again. That’s because whether or not the 16th amendment was proper (although it was), the income tax is good public policy.
For Og’s sake, by that standard, what country on Earth today do you consider a free one?!
That was addressed earlier and your point as well as someone else’s was well taken…The tentacles of the banking industry are far reaching. As was quoted in earlier history in 1790 by Mayer Amschel Rothschild states,
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
(You do of course realize the Rothchild family were important in the European banking business? They had only minor interests in the US.)
Even without Tom Tildrum’s and BrightNShiny’s citation on relevant case law, the fact remains that this country would be utterly devastated without the ability to collect income tax and pay for the services that those taxes provide.
In this instance, I really couldn’t care less about how the ratification process went about a hundred years ago. I want this country to continue because I like living here. While I’m sure if even half of what you say are valid, being right holds little benefit for people alive now. Better to bite the bullet and adhere to a bad law than be righteous and suffer
I sure do know that. Important if you define such practices as in 1815 Whilst the Rothschilds are funding both sides in this war, they use the banks they have spread out across Europe to give them the opportunity to set up an unrivalled postal service network of secret routes and fast couriers. The post these couriers carried was to be opened up by these couriers and their details given to the Rothschilds so they always were one step ahead of current events. Furthermore, these Rothschild couriers were the only merchants allowed to pass through the English and French blockades. It was these couriers who also kept Nathan Mayer Rothschild up to date with how the war was going so he could use that intelligence to buy and sell from his position on the stock exchange in accordance with that intelligence. One of Rothschild’s couriers was a man named Rothworth. When the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo was won by the British, Rothworth took off for the Channel and was able to deliver this news to Nathan Mayer Rothschild, a full 24 hours before Wellington’s own courier. At that time British bonds were called consuls and they were traded on the floor of the stock exchange. Nathan Mayer Rothschild instructed all his workers on the floor to start selling consuls. The made all the other traders believe that the British had lost the war so they started selling frantically. Therefore the consuls plummeted in value which was when Nathan Mayer Rothschild discreetly instructed his workers to purchase all the consuls they could lay their hands on. When news came through that the British had actually won the war, the consuls went up to a level even higher than before the war ended leaving Nathan Mayer Rothschild with a return of approximately 20 to 1 on his investment.This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy, now the financial centre of the world following Napolean’s defeat, and forced England to set up a new Bank of England, which Nathan Mayer Rothschild controlled. Interestingly 100 years later the New York Times would run a story stating that Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress publication of a book which had this insider trading story in it. The Rothschild family claimed the story was untrue and libellous, but the court denied the Rothschilds request and ordered the family to pay all court costs.
Did you know Charles I was black?
Actually, in 1909, there were 46 states, which would’ve required 35 states’ approval (76+%). But by the time it was ratified, there were then 48 states, requiring 36 (exactly 75%).