The Law that Never Was

There is an old question here about the 16th amendment that reviews the Ohio argument against the 16th amendment. This argument seems irrelevant but there exists a better argument by William Benson; the non-ratification argument.

Why have the courts insisted that his argument is fraudulent without saying why? Have they said why?

That’s from the wikipedia article you cited.

And the results of Philander Knox’s investigation?

Last six words of the quote.

Here is what the *Thomas *case says:

Yes, the courts have said why, in a series of cases rejected Benson’s arguments. See in particular in the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Benson’s criminal conviction for income tax evasion, quoted in the wiki article you cited:

[My underlining]

So in the Thomas case the courts apparently reviewed Benson’s arguments in some detail and rejected them.

If you want to see the details of the court’s decision in Thomas, you should be able to find it in any major law library, like in a courthouse. The citation is: 788 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).

Or you could click the link in the previous post. :wink:

preview? what’s preview?

This oughta be entertaining.

(Countdown to gold fringe on flag, seven, six, five…)


Did you read the case?

Have a look at this related thread. My post is #11: