Is the Federal Income Tax unconstitutional?

[sirkickyass]

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".

What is the evidence of the fraud? Is it the Benson books you're speaking of? Because all of those arguments have been considered in court and roundly rejected. Those arguments are de facto legally frivilous.

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.

Before I respond, is it your position that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned?

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.

I had no idea that a) the founding fathers had uniform ideas or b) that the founding fathers' intent was so plainly knowable or c) that we should give primacy to a bunch of guys who died 200 years ago in making present day decisions, or d) that the government had infinite power.

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 I want that amendment repealed, and our Federal government downsized to fit the receipts of a modest 5 percent tariff on all incoming goods, and outgoing capital.

Then you don't want to live in this country.

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. . . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ

 

[One Brow]

Well I believe it does support my claim.

So? For all I know you believe in fairies that grant wishes and elves that make shoes. If the court case says the power is not clear, quote it.

Again, the wording of the 16th Amendment is clear.

 

[The Thriller]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9JeyabU-Z0

Wow... This party died fast!

Thanks a lot Kicky and OB for ruining my dream of keeping more of my money! And for a government that made Somalia's look like a complex welfare state.

I do however, think you're wrong. The FF knowed everything there ever was and ever will be.

 

[franklin]

Well I believe it does support my claim.

More like you hoped to find an interpretation that supports your per-conceived notions.

It'd be awesome if the law of the land was written in words that people could understand.

You mean dumb them down so dumb people can misinterpret them & smart lawyers & judges will have no grounds to stand on to tell them no?

There is no authority for taking taxation of mining corporations out of the rule established by the Sixteenth Amendment; nor is there any basis for the contention that, owing to inadequacy of the allowance for depreciation of ore body, the income tax of 1913 is equivalent to one on the gross product of mines, and, as such, a direct tax on the property itself, and therefore beyond the purview of that amendment and void for want of apportionment.

Independently of the operations of the Sixteenth Amendment, a tax on the product of the mine is not a tax upon property as such because of its ownership, but is a true excise levied on the result of the business of carrying on mining operations. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399.

Don't you see how that supports no income tax? There's a reason I quoted wiki.

 

[northeast]

You mean dumb them down so dumb people can misinterpret them & smart lawyers & judges will have no grounds to stand on to tell them no?
.

not at all, quite the opposite. I would expect you to get it wrong, and be on the side of obfuscation.

 

[Stoked]

not at all, quite the opposite. I would expect you to get it wrong, and be on the side of obfuscation.

Hahah. There have to address all those exceptions and loopholes or people will take advatage of you simple laws all the time (much more than they do now). That or they would fail to provide a fair legal system.

 

[babe]

What is the evidence of the fraud? Is it the Benson books you're speaking of? Because all of those arguments have been considered in court and roundly rejected. Those arguments are de facto legally frivilous.



Before I respond, is it your position that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned?



I had no idea that a) the founding fathers had uniform ideas or b) that the founding fathers' intent was so plainly knowable or c) that we should give primacy to a bunch of guys who died 200 years ago in making present day decisions, or d) that the government had infinite power.



Then you don't want to live in this country.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ

you're cool, Kicky.

But so far as that goes, you've been sitting in your law office too long.

The only thing I can think of that's worse than a lawyer who believes in the law as the arbiter of right and wrong. . . . .

is one who doesn't.

And of that latter class, there's two major types. . . . those who just don't care because they can't change the way things are anyway, and those who just play the system and smile all the way to the bank.

A liberal lawyer who doesn't really believe in Joan Baez has got to be an extreme example of the very worst.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

For one thing, apparently anyone that is supporting taxes being constitutional...... actually like handing there money over to the Federal Reserve.
Am I correct on this?

 

[sirkickyass]

For one thing, apparently anyone that is supporting taxes being constitutional...... actually like handing there money over to the Federal Reserve.
Am I correct on this?

Or they are recognizing objective reality and accepting the consequences.

Although this apparent belief of yours that we can never believe in anything we don't enjoy is very illuminating.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Or they are recognizing objective reality and accepting the consequences.

Although this apparent belief of yours that we can never believe in anything we don't enjoy is very illuminating.

I know you're trying to be articulate here, but I have no ****ing clue what you're getting at.

 

[northeast]

Can we assume that anyone supporting taxes being constitutional actually likes handing their money over to the Federal Reserve?

It took me several readings to figure out the meaning of this post. I cleaned it up a bit. Are you sure you are not a lawyer? The answer to the question is "no", with all due respect.
but I support your fighting spirit.

I would think that most people do not like paying taxes, but how many of those people will vote for politicians that promise to cut spending on military, police, and schools?

 

[babe]

This response is in answer to Kicky's question to me about whether we should overturn Marbury vs. Madison.

Although I could do real legal research like any trained lawyer, plying my way through every legal proceeding that could have any bearing as precedent, I find Wikepedia saves us all a lot of time:

This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"[28] Marshall also argued that the very nature of the judicial function requires courts to make this determination. Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies.[29] Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States." Part of the core of this reasoning is found in the following statements from the decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

I feel, Kicky, it would be well for you to review the line I bolded as corrective for your opinion that we need not be bound by the Constitution at all, since it was written by old fogeys who obviously don't know as much as you do.

If the Constitution needs to be amended, there is a specified procedure for doing so. Unfortunately, we now have some Supreme Court Justices, and many public officials elected and unelected, who are acting on a principle that I compare with "The Divine Right of Kings". That idea, which prevailed before the advent of the common notion of human rights inherent in the people, today goes by the fashionable codes "Administrative Law", and rules and regulations or policies issued by edict from Federal Agencies of all kinds, and "Executive Orders" issued by Presidents, and a whole lot of bad legislation that is going pretty far afield from the enumerated powers stated in the U. S. Constitution.

yeah yeah, it's all done in the name of efficiently solving problems, streamlining government, or whatever seems to be the handy sales pitch, but we are ignoring the Constitution, and in most cases we don't even know what it says, or why, and we don't even care about human rights, or the idea of representative governance, or government of the people, by the people, and for the people. . . . because there's a whole armada of corporate lobbyists camped on every politician's doorstep every morning.

 

[babe]

Another bit for Kicky, re my post that was/is No. 40 on this thread. I sincerely think you didn't read that what said very carefully.

I think I made it clear I consider it pretty worthless to try to dodge the Income Tax, and it's pretty clear that some funny stuff went on in getting the income tax amendment "on the books", but after all these years, rather than argue about the past, we should just get some folks elected who will repeal the income tax amendment.

While we need some kind of societal "safety net" in our corporate financial organization, I think it should be a corporate responsibility, and should be offered as a competitive inducement to secure the services of labor and management personnel, which was a trend for a while about fifty years ago. In addition to that, a tax on payroll like unemployment insurance, and a tax to support education and welfare benefits based on equal-weighted sales and payroll parameters.

Corporations, like Co-Ops, can be efficient in some ways. The price of doing business in this country, with a healthy tariff to make it work in competition with the rest of the world. We pay our fair share to support our society when we buy goods and services. Business is reliable about passing on the costs. . . .

We've got it worked down to the smallest businesses already. . . . kids selling lemonade on the sidewalks are being arrested for not having their business licenses, you know.

But all this is just practical comprise. . . . in a way that doesn't have to require so much intrusion into personal lives. . . which would only require a few Amendments to the Constittution that don't effectively relegate human rights to the dustbin of history.

Maybe I should be ashamed of myself for even trying to think like a socialist. . . .

 

[PearlWatson]

I feel, Kicky, it would be well for you to review the line I bolded as corrective for your opinion that we need not be bound by the Constitution at all, since it was written by old fogeys who obviously don't know as much as you do.

If the Constitution needs to be amended, there is a specified procedure for doing so. Unfortunately, we now have some Supreme Court Justices, and many public officials elected and unelected, who are acting on a principle that I compare with "The Divine Right of Kings". That idea, which prevailed before the advent of the common notion of human rights inherent in the people, today goes by the fashionable codes "Administrative Law", and rules and regulations or policies issued by edict from Federal Agencies of all kinds, and "Executive Orders" issued by Presidents, and a whole lot of bad legislation that is going pretty far afield from the enumerated powers stated in the U. S. Constitution.

yeah yeah, it's all done in the name of efficiently solving problems, streamlining government, or whatever seems to be the handy sales pitch, but we are ignoring the Constitution, and in most cases we don't even know what it says, or why, and we don't even care about human rights, or the idea of representative governance, or government of the people, by the people, and for the people. . . . because there's a whole armada of corporate lobbyists camped on every politician's doorstep every morning.

That is a really great point.