first of all , i hate politics but the more you learn about whats happening in our govement, you have to,lol. heres a guy running for president that i think everyone needs to hear about, his name is ron paul, he wants our troops back, hes for less govement including the irs, thats right irs, for all of us that give the govement 25 to 30 percent of our money and do not agree with what there doing with it, than you probably need to read and hear what im saying. first of all ill introduce you to aaron russo, he was the director of the rose with bet midler, trading places with eddie murphy, he was going to run for president before he got cancer, hes still alive and well but is going thruogh treatment as we speak,take the time to hear this video and send it to everyone, it is really scary but its the truth!ron paul is in the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198 heres another link about aaron russo praising ron paul for running for our president http://www.rense.com/general75/arrp.htm
Yeah... great way to rally behind a candidate. "Hey, this guy wants to run. could you shoot a quick conspiracy theory video for him? Thats pretty much the only chance in hell he's got."
Only in the fringe groups who don't bother with the Supreme Court, Congress, or any other view outside of their own of what "should be" the case for government. Of course we can cut out the IRS and transfer the responsibility to the state tax agencies who will have to increase their rates to still provide the same service level, but it sounds so good to say it in such a misrepresenting manner ..... so much for truth in advertising much less government ... :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/02.html#1 The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue. 6 [Footnote 3] The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ''professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire ''burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635 . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/01.html#2 Marvin D. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Internal Revenue Service. [excerpt] We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed.2d 493 (1916), and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure. See Foster, 789 F.2d at 463 n. 6 (the propriety of the ratification of a constitutional amendment may be a non-justiciable political question). Determined and persistent tax protesters like Miller seek to utilize the federal judicial forum without consideration of the significant limitations on the authority of both the district courts and the courts of appeal. One such limitation stems from the bedrock principle of stare decisis: lower courts are bound by the precedential authority of cases rendered by higher courts. U.S. Ex Rel. Shore v. O'Leary, 833 F.2d 663, 667 (7th Cir.1987). This limitation on judicial power is one of the cornerstones of the legal structure in that it serves broader societal interests such as the orderly and predictable application of legal rules. This doctrine prevents us from disregarding the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment. The Court's decisions are binding on us and the district court absent strong evidence that the Court will overrule its own cases. Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir.1987). We perceive no signs that the Supreme Court is harboring any such intentions with regard to the validity of the sixteenth amendment
false rattification you mean, it was done during the christmas break and says theres no new tax laws.this here is from our constitution, does not say income. The Congress shall have power-- 1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States: 2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States: 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes: 4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States: 5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures: 6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:
The TAX on income is not a TAX which may be laid or collected by the Congress in the opinion of this learned group?
Maybe a bit of history might help clear up the misconceptions over the "new" tax issue ... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government. In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911. The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today. In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
Because it is against the law to not pay them, just as it is illegal to break other laws and regualtions. You missed the whole question thing too, didn't you?
you are so right, good to have someone here that knows what there talking about, the income tax was to be during the civil war only to help pay for it, but then the govement said to themeselves,,,,,,,, shhhhhhhhhhhh dont say anything and well keep this taxation thing going as long as we can! god wants 10 percent,,,,,, govement wants 30,,,,hummmmmmmmm
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945. this was the part where it was done illegally during the christmas vacation, supreme court said there were no new taxation laws but they kept doing it.
No, the income tax was dropped and then picked back up later. If it was illegal now it would have been illegal then too ....
No, it does specifically mention the income tax though, but it states that none of the income is to be apportioned as was the prior ruling of the USSC on the income from property such as rental and leases. There was no new taxes created, as noted in several places in this and other threads. The change was in the classification of a small portion of the income to remove the need for apportionment. This was due to the USSC 1895 ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co
Christmas vacation??? I do hate people who don't know the history of their own country (or, at least, are too ignorant to actually look it up themselves). The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. Read that again.. July 12th.. Tell me, are you the only person who celebrates Christmas in July??? It took three and a half years from the time Congress proposed it to the states to the point where 3/4 of them ratified it. Yep, they were really sneaky there. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
feb 25th 1913, it was submitted on july 12 1909, all the ratifications happened in 1913 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#_note-11
Did you read your own link? It shows dates of ratification from 1909 through 1913, with ratification completed in 1913. It also says: (emphasis added)
Yes, and no reason for any ruling on a constitutional amendment because it is by definition not something over which the court has jurisdiction.
