Monday, February 19, 2007

From The Reader Comments

Rose Lear said...

This challenge is to anyone who is willing to come forward and answer this question. Invite Congressman, Senators, Judge, IRS agents, DOJ, media. Anyone who feels qualified to answer this one question.

Ed and Elaine Brown, and every American would like to have clarity on how exactly the 16th Amendment to the Constitution implies taxes upon every "person" when Article 1 Clause 8 clearly states that no direct tax can be imposed without apportionment. This really troubles me to believe that the 16th Amendment overturned a direct Constitutional limitation upon the Congress. In other words how can Congress pass a law, the 16th Amendment, in direct violation to Congress' limitations imposed by Article 1 Clause 8 under capitation and direct taxes?

Did the 16th Amendment overturn the capitation and direct tax limitations imposed by the Constitution?

UPDATE: it's Article 1 Section 9 clause 3.

sorry if I used the wrong sec and clause


Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

The Supreme Court has TWICE ruled that the 16th Amendment created no new taxing powers for Congress, nor extended taxation to NO NEW SUBJECTS. That means that anything and anyone not taxable BEFORE the 16th Amendment was not taxable AFTER the 16th Amendment. How much simpler can that be made? That the DOT, the DOJ and the IRS claim the 16th Amendment as the government's justification for the IRS is laughable.

Any reasonable examination at the historical progression of the tax code clearly reveals the very obvious deception that occurred in the re-writing, re-structuring, and the expansion of the IRC over the years, but the KEY is that it was all done without any legislation and no Statutes at Large directed the significant changes IMPLIED by the revisions.

11:04 AM  
Blogger albanyNY said...

Bob Schultz has been asking the question to show the law for years under the redress of grievences in the 1st amendment clause to no avail. The government just refuses to answer.

11:15 AM  
Blogger here2daygonetomorrow said...

fredmarshall1937 said...
The Supreme Court has TWICE ruled that the 16th Amendment created no new taxing powers for Congress, nor extended taxation to NO NEW SUBJECTS.

For the benefit of others, could you provide a pointer to these Supreme Court rulings? I, and I'm sure others, might like to see those for ourselves. Hearing is one thing, but seeing is believing. Thanks.

12:36 PM  
Blogger whynot said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:09 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

The 16th Amendment is not the Source of the Federal Income Tax
At this link is a complete explanation of what the 16th Amendment actually did. Court cases galore are cited.

16th Amendment Not Legally Ratified - Bill Benson explains
No evidence can be found in the law journals of the time, not in the journals on political economy or economics, not in the Congressional Record nor other Congressional documents, nor in any of the newspapers of record of the time. In other words, the government's position that wages and salaries equals income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is 'wholly without foundation.'" Phil Hart, Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any? page 10, (Alpine Press, 2001).
Fact #2: A tax on wages payable by the wage earner is a Capitation Tax. So says the premier authority on the issue, Adam Smith author of the timeless work Wealth of Nations. Ibid. pp. 141-145.

Fact #3: Capitation Taxes are direct taxes and are required by the Constitution to be apportioned among the 50 States. The 16th Amendment had nothing to do with Capitation Taxes. Ibid. pp. 250 - 253.

Fact #4: In the few hours just prior to the Senate's passage of the 16th Amendment the morning of July 5, 1909, the Senate twice by vote rejected two separate proposals to include direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment. Ibid. pp. 193-200.

Fact #5: In briefs and argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, both Brushaber and the Government claimed that the 16th Amendment provided for a direct tax exempted from the Constitutional apportionment rule. The High Court called this claim an "erroneous assumption...wholly without foundation." Ibid. pp. 204-210.

Fact #6: Just weeks after the Brushaber Case was decided, Mr. Stanton, in the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. again claimed (35 times) that the 16th Amendment created a new class of constitutional tax, that being a direct tax exempted from the apportionment rule. The High Court said in this case that the 16th Amendment created "no new tax." Ibid. pp. 212-220.

Fact #7: In the Stanton and Brushaber Cases, the Supreme Court ruled correctly by excluding direct taxes from the 16th Amendment. The intent of the American People and that of Congress was never to directly tax the American People, but only to tax income severed from accumulated wealth. Ibid. pp. 244 - 270.

Fact #8: When the Supreme Court stated in the Eisner, Stanton, and Doyle Cases that "Income may be derived from capital, or labor or from both combined" all these cases dealt with corporations and had nothing to do with the "Are wages income?" question. Ibid. pp. 239-244 and 272-274.

Fact #9: The genesis of the 16th Amendment was the income tax plank of the Democrat Party's Presidential Platform of 1908 which clearly reveals the intent of that Amendment: "We favor an income tax as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportional share of the burdens of the federal government." Ibid. p. 48.

Fact #10: There is not, and never has been, any delegation of authority from We the People to the government for the collection of an unapportioned direct tax on the wages and salaries of the American People. It has been a maxim of English Law since the Magna Carta of 1215, that the People must consent to all taxation. "We are being taxed without our Consent!" Ibid. p. 278. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Constitutional Income::Do You Have Any :: Ten Key Facts ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Cutting off the interview because Aaron insists on asking whether the court didn't rule (in the Brushaber and Baltic Mining cases) that the 16th created no new taxing authority, etc., the supercilious Mr. Cohen asks, incredulously, "You want a 1920 Supreme Court decision to take precedence over an IRS code that was written years later?"

Aaron Russo's new film tackles the income tax
The Way It Is

Your Right To Privacy Has Been Slowly Taken Away

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power and the Court ruled the 16th Amendment was and is an excise tax, and excise taxes are allowed under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, See Long V. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 (1922)

2:00 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

here2daygonetomorrow said...

For the benefit of others, could you provide a pointer to these Supreme Court rulings?

Here2day, Hope the post above helps.

2:03 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Peck vs, Lowe is a case that said that the 16th Amendment did not extend Congress' taxing power to any new or excepted subjects. I'm not sure it was mentioned in the links above, and don't have time to re-read them.

2:08 PM  
Blogger RB from BR said...

Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920) is another.

3:54 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

The 16th Amendment does not Supercede any other part of the Constitution as Written... Neither can ANY LAW passed through Congress, go against the Constitution as written... Ed Brown has the Constitutional Right... to have every Statute Read during his trial... and the Jurors have the very same right to Review those Statutes for Themselves, as well as any of their Pertaining Regulations.

When the Federal Reserve came to be... It was perceived that Congress had the ability under the Constitution, to Remove the Power Granted to the FED RESV. at any time it was deemed "NO LONGER NECESSARY".

Congress to this day have Failed WE THE PEOPLE in meeting this OBLIGATION.

The Federal Reserve is NO LONGER NEEDED... and is the VERY REASON for our Nations BANKRUPCY and DEBT.

One very Important President Realized this, and PASSED BILL 11110, which WAS and STILL IS the Very tool by which WE THE PEOPLE can LEGALLY shut down the Federal Reserve!

This President was John FitzGerald Kennedy. He was Murdered roughly 6 months after passing this BILL. He was Murdered for this very reason, and for wanting no part of VIETNAM.

Why has no President Utilized Bill 11110? Research this for Yourself, and ask this Question.

Executive Order 1110 gave the US the ability to create its own money backed by silver. ...

More directly in regard to your Question... I am no EXPERT... But I can say, and Prove beyond ANY Doubt (as have others)... That the 16th Ammendment WAS NOT RATIFIED. This proof is right in front of anyyone who takes the Time to Discover it.

And if you watch "Theft by Deception" (Free Google Video), You will Learn WHAT THE LAWS SAY, and WHERE THEY ARE WRITTEN.

5:13 PM  
Blogger TrueLogic said...

Oh Yeah... As well as how they have been Re-Written... In order to Conceal CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND AUTHORITY Specifically Prohibiting Taxation of Labor upon Citizens who are "NOT TAXABLE UNDER LAW".


Any U.S. Citizen who derives their INCOME "Solely from within the United States" and is "NOT A BENEFICIARY OF ANY FEDERAL HOLDING SUCH AS PUERTO RICO OR OTHERS" In essence, this means if You have no Foreign Income, and work within the Private sector... Specifically... not A Federal Employee. The only Income that is in FACT Taxable... is Foreign Earned Income or Gain. The Average American Citizen's U.S. LABOR AND PAYMENT FOR SAID LABOR... Are NOT Taxable "BY THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION" and that is EXACTLY WHY it is not Taxable by any other LAW consequently... and is EXACTLY WHY "THEY"... Will Not "SHOW YOU, A LAW"!

Are you Getting this?

Why the hell is this so hard for people to understand? The Facts are out there for Everyone to see, and the LAW EVERYONE'S LOOKING FOR... Is right in the World's Face, And it IS WRITTEN LAW...For all you non-believers, and Critics of "TAX HONESTY ADVOCATES"... Why do think the Government WONT FACE THE LAW in our own Courts? Why do you think the Courts Themselves, and the Government, Refuse to Even Allow the LAW to be Presented, By Ed and Elain Brown?

I can't speak for any of you People... But I've researched the "LAW"... Which is cited by First, the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, and then the Statutes and the Regulations there of.

I can only speak for Myself...
I happen to be Noones Dummy, and the Truth has always come easy, and presented itself Profoundly in my Lifetime, as I have Fervently sought it out.

For the True American Patriot, it is our Duty to also Protect, and Stand just as firmly, if not more... For the Rights of those who are weaker, and cannot Stand for their Own Rights.

6:15 PM  

Isn't it interesting how all all the "anonymous" posters/liers have yet to returned.

5:24 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home