Income Tax Ratification

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Income Tax Amendment Not Ratified
Here is the information I looked up on the topic (It has little/nothing to do with Ohio):

The ratification required by at least 36 states – three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence – has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here’s the story:

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.

Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.

Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.

And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states – far less than the required 36.

2

While it doesn’t specifically address the states you mentioned this site cites case law that states

Seems pretty conclusive, regardless of these specific objections.

3

I’m puzzled, here. It’s logically impossible for a state to violate its constitution in ratifying an ammendment of the U. S. Constitution, because any portion of state law (including the state constitutions) is null if it is contrary to any part of the U. S. Constitution. So the ammendment (being a part of the U. S. Constitution) would supercede any clause to the contrary in the constitutions of the states of Texas or Louisiana.

4

No, you’re misunderstanding what he said.

brianj16426 stated that the state constitutions of Texas and Louisiana specifically prohibited those states from empowering the federal government to collect an income tax. It was the 16th amendment that empowered the feds to collect the tax. Since ratification of an amendment by the state legislature is an act of the legislature of that state, it cannot go against the state’s constitution. Therefore, Texas and Louisiana should not have been able to ratify the amendment. (Note: I don’t know about the accuracy of brianj16426’s statement. My analysis assumes it’s accuracy.)

Of course, once the amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states, it goes into effect for all, even those that did not ratify it.

Zev Steinhardt

5

Actually, if it gets down to that, the Peace Treaty ending the Revolutionary War was not signed by any duly-elected American representatives, and was never approved by the Senate, and so the U.S. is still legally a British colony. All you people complaining about paying U.S. taxes, you actually owe BRITISH taxes, which are significantly higher, and not only that, but you owe back-taxes for about 230 years.

[/sarcasm]

6

Yet another opportunity to post the link to the Tax Protester FAQ.

brianj16426, I’m curious. Since all the courts in the land have held for nigh unto 100 years that the 16th Amendment did pass properly, how do you account for their disagreement with your statements, and what is the meaning of your argument?

7

Nice try- but the Courts have ruled otherwise. You don’t get to make your own Constitutional law. :dubious: :rolleyes:

8

Shoot, that link goes to the wrong place on the page.

Scroll down from there to “The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.” for more relevant info.

9

Your assumption is sensible, but wrong. The case turns out to be that these states’ constitutions forbid (or forbade) them to institute state income taxes. That has no legal bearing on the power of those states’ legislatures to ratify an amendment to the Federal constitution enabling a Federal income tax.

The “incorrect spelling and punctuation” is also a false argument, by the way. Some courts have held that some legal documents must be exactly copied, but this is not a general principle of law. The 16th-Amendment discrepancies were noted at the time and adjudged to be meaningless, and that judgment has been upheld since.

10

Fair enough. I qualified what I said by stating that I was taking brianj16426’s statement about the state constitutions prohibiting them from empowering the federal government from collecting income taxes at face value. I did not see the constitutions myself.

Zev Steinhardt

11

The U.S. Supreme Court also doesn’t have many (if any rulings) on the amendment process. SCOTUS pretty much goes by the standard of “Well, the Secretary of State told us there was a new amendment, so let’s see how it works.”

The 13th Amendment had some trouble getting the necessary number of states to ratify it too and I believe some wanted to change their mind only to have Secretary of State William Seward say “Too late, can’t take it back.” (This may have been the 14th or 15th, I’m not sure here.)

12

But you know- that’s my point. There are scads of lawyers out there, and you know what? I bet they don’t like Income tax much either. So you might just think :rolleyes: that one of them might have thought of these various Constitutional or other legal challenges. But nooooooooo :rolleyes: . Some idiot who’s only legal experience comes from reading the back of a matchbook cover about “be a legal assitant in 30 days!” :dubious: thinks he can read some various bills and whatnot and come up the the big suprise that the Income Tax is UnConsitutional , and that we’ve all been dupes for paying it for the last near 1000 years. They really think that they have discovered the “BIG SECRET” and that no lawyer could possibly have scoured the books desperately for any fricken loophole when faced with a 6 figure Alt Min Tax bill. 'Cause you see- man- all those lawyers are either stupid or part of the conspiracy. :rolleyes: :dubious:

Dude- the 16th Admendment has been repeatedly thoroughly challenged in Court- all the way up the Supremes. It has been ruled & proven more Constitutionally valid than just about every freaken other Admendment- including the Bill Of Rights. Really- once the “Big Nine” has made their ruling- it’s over- the Fat Lady has sung.

I got news for you- the US Consititution itself was of very doubtful legality when it started. The Louisiana Purchase was certainly outside the powewrs of the President then. And as Dex said- the Treaty ending the Revolutionary war wasn’t 100% Kosher either (sorry, dude :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue: ).

But you know- even if they found some small technicality that said that the Bill of Rights (or some other ancient law) wasn’t properly ratified- they wouldn’t just go “whoops- OK, no freedoms for you!”. Thye’d just go "OK, it’s been Common Law for a couple hundred years- sooo GET OVER IT ". :mad:

13

100, not 1000. :smack:

Sorry about the rant, but…

14

It just feels like a thousand. :slight_smile:

Seriously, if someone wants to put it on the line, not pay taxes and challenge the constitutionality of the income tax I’ll throw them $100 if and when they get the courts to say ‘Damn, what were we thinking?’ and they get their ‘get out of jail free’ card.

15

Moderator Speaketh: Dr Deth, while I understand your frustration, please refrain from personal insults in this forum. I’m not quite sure exactly towards whom your comments were addressed, and it may have been the authors of the websites. That’s fine, you can insult them all you want. However, my first reading inferred that you were calling brianj16426 for his OP. That’s not permitted here, as you well know.

16

Yes, I apolgize for not being more clear. The “idiots” were the authors of the websites, not our OP, of course. He may not believe in this stuff, and perhaps was only trying to confirm data, which is a good thing.

Again, I apologize for not being clear- I see now on second reading how Dex could have been confused.

Oh for a "edit’ feature! :stuck_out_tongue:

17

Remember, folks, that’s $100 after taxes…

18

Hey brianj16426. Sounds like a great theory. Knock yourself out and give it a try, and let us know how it goes.

19

And the tip is based on the gross amount, not the after-tax amount.

20

You know what? I bet you could find similar minor problems in the ratification of nigh every admendment. In fact, the Constitution itself wasn’t legal under the Articles of Confederation.