To which ruling do you refer?
Is the Federal Income Tax unconstitutional?
- Thread starter TheSilencer1313
- Start date
To which ruling do you refer?
More likely, it's the result of a federal law requiring the language.
This is often the case. Alot of federal letters , reegulations and policies are worded the way they are as a result of lawsuits.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Most notably "Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co.".
https://nesara.org/court_summaries/stanton_v_baltic_mining_co.htm
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
That's all fine and dandy.
But when it comes to taxes on my wages, I'd like the wording to be exact.
Why yes they are, and in this case they are worded that way because the Supreme Court has upheld it's unconstitutionality.
So you agree with my overall assertion.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Why yes I do.
Because the government always has to create a generality in order to explain itself in the future.
But at the same time, the debate is "are federal income taxes on wages constitutional or not".
The Stanton case clearly states they are not, and this decision has never been overturned.
Well when it is vague it is the governments attempt to avoid such lawsuits. When it is very specific it is usually the result of a lawsuit.
As for the unconstituionality of income tax. You may or may not be right (I do not know that case and will not pretend I do) but it is a fight that you will not win. That I do know.
From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_v._Baltic_Mining_Company
So he wanted expensing (which is now included in GAAP).
Took me less than 30 seconds to blow that one up. What else you got?
I'mnot going to run that whole case, line by line, to show it does not say "the power is not clear". Where does the ruling say, in effect, "the power is not clear"?
Bur regardless of dissenting rulings, the Supreme Court decides if something is constitutional or not. Their majority opinion is the one that matters. You can't pinpoint one group who has that power in regards to the Bible.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
I think using sarcasm on someone else's source, without giving any indication you have a superior source, is an excellent way to cover up your complete inability to provide a reference where SCOTUS says the power of Congress to levy an income tax is not clear. I'm sure everyone will be fooled, and no one will notice your failure.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Funny.
I already provided a reputable source.
And wikipedia would not be on my list of reputable anything.
Yes. The issue is that your source did not support your claim that the power is "not clear". Quoting 200 SCOTUS decisions that do not say the power is "not clear" will not support a contention that the power is not clear.
By contrast, the 16th Amendment is clear.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Well I believe it does support my claim.
In fact, it's not even my claim. I learned about it through the "We The People Foundation".
Thousands of people from around the country support this claim, including constitutional lawyers and scholars.
https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
An A student from a very prestigious 40k+ per year college recently told me his professor(s) said there was an open issue of whether income taxes were constitutional, and acted like I was a moron for responding that it was a Republican objective to get rid of income taxes, (no, its just an issue of the constitution, politics have nothing to do with it he said.)
I also said I thought it was probably pretty settled that income taxes were constitutional since we've had them for nearly a century, (but I suppose with a Robert's court anything is possible)
I also said I thought it was probably pretty settled that income taxes were constitutional since we've had them for nearly a century, (but I suppose with a Robert's court anything is possible)
Last edited:
This is a classic "crank" test.
It's a myth that nearly all Supreme Court cases are 5 to 4 decisions by the way. Those are the just the ones that get the most attention. Only 16.6% of Supreme Court votes over the last sixty four years have come down to a single vote. The highest ratio was in 2006 at 33.8%.
Easily the most common voting outcome is 9-0, consistently generated in more than 40% of all cases.
It takes very little work to see that Thesilencer is just wrong about the Supreme Court case fyi. Took me under two minutes.
Here's a link to the full text:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/case.html
Here's a portion of the syllabus:
It's a myth that nearly all Supreme Court cases are 5 to 4 decisions by the way. Those are the just the ones that get the most attention. Only 16.6% of Supreme Court votes over the last sixty four years have come down to a single vote. The highest ratio was in 2006 at 33.8%.
Easily the most common voting outcome is 9-0, consistently generated in more than 40% of all cases.
It takes very little work to see that Thesilencer is just wrong about the Supreme Court case fyi. Took me under two minutes.
Here's a link to the full text:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/case.html
Here's a portion of the syllabus:
So I was wondering, this morning, how long it would take to get to the claim that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional on the basis of the irregularities and fraud involved in get it "on the books".
It is just as important to note that our original founders, in writing the Constitution, did not intend for the Supreme Court to displace the role of the Legislators or Executive in coming to have "all the marbles" in their pockets to re-write the Constitution.
The original intent of our founders was to limit the powers of the Federal government, and make it serve the people, not create a monster that had infinite powers unresponsive to the people.
Income tax is not a good idea. I want that amendment repealed, and our Federal government downsized to fit the receipts of a modest 5 percent tariff on all incoming goods, and outgoing capital.
Doing battle with the current status quo, one vs. the government, is not a good idea. You need to cope with what is, and change it as you can for the better through political process.
Well, maybe we could do two amendments, one say to collect voluntary contributions for the care of the poor, the sick, and for national defense.
A lot we like our government doing for us could be done on a "co-operative" basis, where folks who want a share of ownership in an infrastructure project, like a utility, water supply, canal, dam, or highway for example, could ask for the creation of said project under government license and regulation.
I'd like to see a huge desalination project for the areas dependent on the Colorado or Rio Grande for irrigation, and huge canals from the Alaskan and Canadian rivers. I think the people should own these types of things. . . . all the people served by such projects.
In other words, a form of "corporation" where every one is by virtue of their existence in the area served, an equal owner. . . . .
Just thinking. . . . if we want a "government" responsive to the people, rather than some "elite" set of more significant people, there's gotta be a way to do it.
It is just as important to note that our original founders, in writing the Constitution, did not intend for the Supreme Court to displace the role of the Legislators or Executive in coming to have "all the marbles" in their pockets to re-write the Constitution.
The original intent of our founders was to limit the powers of the Federal government, and make it serve the people, not create a monster that had infinite powers unresponsive to the people.
Income tax is not a good idea. I want that amendment repealed, and our Federal government downsized to fit the receipts of a modest 5 percent tariff on all incoming goods, and outgoing capital.
Doing battle with the current status quo, one vs. the government, is not a good idea. You need to cope with what is, and change it as you can for the better through political process.
Well, maybe we could do two amendments, one say to collect voluntary contributions for the care of the poor, the sick, and for national defense.
A lot we like our government doing for us could be done on a "co-operative" basis, where folks who want a share of ownership in an infrastructure project, like a utility, water supply, canal, dam, or highway for example, could ask for the creation of said project under government license and regulation.
I'd like to see a huge desalination project for the areas dependent on the Colorado or Rio Grande for irrigation, and huge canals from the Alaskan and Canadian rivers. I think the people should own these types of things. . . . all the people served by such projects.
In other words, a form of "corporation" where every one is by virtue of their existence in the area served, an equal owner. . . . .
Just thinking. . . . if we want a "government" responsive to the people, rather than some "elite" set of more significant people, there's gotta be a way to do it.
Last edited: