Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish the Federal Reserve

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish the Federal Reserve (http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=23951)

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish the Federal Reserve

teambio | 17 Jun 2007 | Steve O

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish the Federal Reserve

Rep. Ronald Paul has been getting kudos left, right and center for his anti-war stance but lets not forget his overall libertarian stance on most issues.

On Friday, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 2755 To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes. The text of this bill is not yet available on-line but Rep.

Ron Paul 0wnz the Federal Reserve (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=254789066215671796&q=Ron+Paul++the+Federal+Reserve&total=639&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[CrossLOPER]

OK. Let me admit that I generally spend my time under a damn rock. Now, having said this, tell me: is this Ron Paul stuff a joke? I mean come on! The guy obviously is just kidding around. Abolish the IRS? Return to the gold standard? Oh! Let's have the common US citizen pay 3.00USD an hour to breath clean air since government regulations have been done away with! Let's raze our wilderness for commercial benefit.

I ask plainly: Is Ron Paul an international in-joke whose source I missed while doing something I personally found constructive?

EDIT: Ron Paul.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

:inquisitive: why

[Ice]

:inquisitive: why

Because the FED is making your dollar less worth, blah blah blah blah.

Yes, the gold standard. No IRS, No Federal Reserve. Brilliant.

Remember guys, this is all unconstitutional. We need to return to the good old days of 1700s.

I don't usually do this but...

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

At Ron Paul and these awful ideas.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Ok I just watched the video I think that he just want more transparency from the dudes who have your money

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, the gold standard. No IRS, No Federal Reserve. Brilliant.

Remember guys, this is all unconstitutional.

Yes it is and for very good reason. In fact its the main reason we had a revolution. You have all been duped


Lets start with printing money. Its forbidden by the constitution. Only the minting of gold and silver coins can be used to pay debts.



Now the Fed. Only congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value there of. What is a private banking cartel doing running it?


Next income tax. Its unconstitutional to place a direct tax on the people of the US without apportionment .


Now you may think this is all a big joke but I take it very seriously. The Fed is why you have to pay income tax.

[Csargo]

:sweatdrop:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm all for stopping the government from printing money to pay its debts, but even Dr. Paul has to know this isn't going to work. Grand, giant leaps is not what legislation's about. It's all about incrementalism, slowly stripping the government of power and then one day the dems wake up and find they can't levy income taxes on people. Bwahaha!

CR

[Ice]

Ok I just watched the video I think that he just want more transparency from the dudes who have your money

So have I.

To be honest, I'm to tired right now to get into indepth research to debunk his claims, but most of what he said is pure garbage.

Congress does have the power to create a central bank (which, in reality, is made up of many privately owned regional banks. It isn't one big bank)

The central bank doesn't answer to Congress. It was made that way to be partisan free which was a good idea to separate monetary policy from fiscal policy. It doesn't have to tell Congress a damn thing.

Paul talks about the fiat system causing inflation. Inflation would happen one way or the other, with or without a fiat system.

The idea of the federal reserve is keep the economy in relative check trying to avoid the massive busts that usually occur within a free market economy.

You think the busts are bad now? Imagine no federal reserve and our currency was backed by gold. When ever the price of gold goes up/down the economy fluctuates like crazy. Not really a good idea. There is a reason why no one uses the gold standard anymore and most, if not all countries, have a central bank.

[Ice]

Yes it is and for very good reason. In fact its the main reason we had a revolution. You have all been duped

You are just as bad as the extreme left. It's pretty good laugh.


Lets start with printing money. Its forbidden by the constitution. Only the minting of gold and silver coins can be used to pay debts.


Show me. If it is obviously unconstitutional why hasn't our judiciary system struck it down or atleast had a serious debate about it?


Now the Fed. Only congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value there of. What is a private banking cartel doing running it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

Congress granted them the power.


Next income tax. Its unconstitutional to place a direct tax on the people of the US without apportionment .


Again, show me.


Now you may think this is all a big joke but I take it very seriously. The Fed is why you have to pay income tax.


I thought roads, a military, police, fire, etc was the reason I had to pay an income tax. Opps.

Yes, I do this as a huge joke.

[woad&fangs]

Come on Orkeny, we all know that the constitution and the bill of rights is a big fat scam.

1st Amendment: *quietly suppresses his laughter*

2nd Amendment: Intent was to give the US citizens away to fight the government if it becomes corrupt and to give them the ability to form a militia in times of war. Last I checked, I may be a great shot with my deer rifle but it ain't going to stand up to machine guns and tanks. The Gov should therefore get rid of the machine gun ban and offer tanks, Apache helicopters and aircraft carriers for sale.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

1st it was never properly ratified

secondly what it really did was clarify that the income tax was an indirect tax

Also the Supreme court consitently shot down all proposed national income taxes as unconsitutional. They also ruled that the 16th amednment gave congress no new taxing powers. So if you couldnt be taxed before you could not be after it.


I'm all for stopping the government from printing money to pay its debts,

Its not the government priniting it its the fed and the debt is the interest they charge the government on the loan.


Congress does have the power to create a central bank (which, in reality, is made up of many privately owned regional banks. It isn't one big bank)

It has no such power.


The central bank doesn't answer to Congress. It was made that way to be partisan free which was a good idea to separate monetary policy from fiscal policy. It doesn't have to tell Congress a damn thing.

:laugh4:

It was made that way so they could run the nation.


Paul talks about the fiat system causing inflation. Inflation would happen one way or the other, with or without a fiat system.

We were pretty much inflation free until the 20th century. And debt free as well until the Fed and the IRS came along. The dollar of 1913 when the Fed and IRS were introduced is now worth 4 cents. We have been robbed. We are working for the bankers. If it is their charge to preserve that value of our money I would have to say they cannot have done much worse of a job of it.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2006/images/0106_1.gif

[Husar]

I think Bijo once posted these:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683

Maybe they're of some use for the debate though they're long.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think Bijo once posted these:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...18677860424204
http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...45760512239683

Maybe they're of some use for the debate though they're long.

Yup more good stuff. The problem here is you cant just take a casual look at the laws and decide for yourself. Its very deep and convoluted as was the intention of the IRS and the Fed.

[Geoffrey S]

Hang on a second, am I missing the part explaining that the gold standard wasn't the cause of the Depression or the reason that nations adhering to it were hit harder than those that left it?

I'll confess to knowing next to nothing about the Federal Reserve and how it all functions, but if Ron Paul's views on the gold standard are anything to go by please forgive me for being somewhat sceptical.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hang on a second, am I missing the part explaining that the gold standard wasn't the cause of the Depression or the reason that nations adhering to it were hit harder than those that left it?

The cause of the great depression was the FED. The current chairman recently apologized for it. He said it was a bad experiment that didnt work as planned.:help:

Oh he also promised never to do it again.

[Ice]

1st it was never properly ratified

How?

42/50 states ratified it. 4 did not, and 2 didn't vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


secondly what it really did was clarify that the income tax was an indirect tax

To be disputed. The courts interpretation of the amendment has changed constantly over time.



Also the Supreme court consitently shot down all proposed national income taxes as unconsitutional. They also ruled that the 16th amednment gave congress no new taxing powers. So if you couldnt be taxed before you could not be after it.

Which cases, Gawain? There are a bunch of on it. Was it most recent?




Its not the government priniting it its the fed and the debt is the interest they charge the government on the loan.


You do realize Congress can abolish the Federal Reserve, correct? Congress gave the FED the power to do what they are doing. They can take it away.

Care to explain how the FED is charging the government interest on loans?



It has no such power.

Uh, yeah it does through the Federal Reserve Act I showed you. Congress has the power to pass legislation.



:laugh4:

It was made that way so they could run the nation.

No. It was made that way so one party in the white house/congress could not influence both monetary and fiscal policy.

The two being separate is a very good idea.


We were pretty much inflation free until the 20th century. And debt free as well until the Fed and the IRS came along. The dollar of 1913 when the Fed and IRS were introduced is now worth 4 cents. We have been robbed. We are working for the bankers. If it is their charge to preserve that value of our money I would have to say they cannot have done much worse of a job of it.


*Yawn*

Interesting chart Gawain. Perhaps you should look closer at it. Inflation holds steady about 15 years after the gold standard is abolished.

I don't know, could the government's massive spending and debt, cause inflation also?

[Ice]

The cause of the great depression was the FED. The current chairman recently apologized for it. He said it was a bad experiment that didnt work as planned.:help:

Oh he also promised never to do it again.

You are right. The FED is to blame a bit for the great depression. Saying it all the Fed's fault is an obvious fallacy though. Anyway, Ill focus on your comment about the FED though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Causes


Milton Friedman and Benjamin Bernanke, argue that the Great Depression was caused by monetary contraction, which was the consequence of poor policy making by the American Federal Reserve System and continuous crisis in the banking system.[4] By not acting, the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to shrink by one-third from 1930 to 1931. Friedman argued[5] the downward turn in the economy starting with the stock market crash would have been just another recession. The problem was that some large, public bank failures, particularly the Huntly New York Bank of the United States, produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and that the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks fell. He claimed if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not have fallen after the large ones did and the money supply would not have fallen to the extent and at the speed that it did.[6


So yes, you are right. The Fed is to partially the blame. What is funny though, if they would have intervened via pumping money into the economy they would have likely lessened the severity and length of the depression.

The irony here is they caused a massive deflation of the dollar.


One reason why the Federal Reserve did not act to limit the decline of the money supply was regulation. At that time the amount of credit that the Federal Reserve could issue was limited due to laws which required partial gold backing of that credit. By the late 1920's the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes. Since a "promise of gold" is not as good as "gold in the hand", during the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. Several years into the Great Depression the private ownership of gold was declared illegal and reduced the pressure on Federal Reserve gold.

Gold Standard was good, eh?

So let's see. The combination of the gold standard and the FED not acting to soften the bust probably helped accelerate and lengthen the greatest recession/depression in United States history.

Thanks for proving my point.


*A note, I only posted the cited sections of the wikipedia article.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How?

42/50 states ratified it. 4 did not, and 2 didn't vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...Constitut ion

Wiki :laugh4:

The Law That Never Was (http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm)


The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" was falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913), Bill Benson wrote his fact findings in The Law That Never Was, Vols. 1 & 2. He was able to unequivocally prove that the 16th Amendment was never Constitutionally, properly, or legally ratified. The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.




WND Exclusive SUNDAY Q&A
'The law that never was'
Geoff Metcalf's interview answers question, 'Is 16th Amendment legal?' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17398)


By Geoff Metcalf
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

A criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for approximately 10 years, William J. Benson of South Holland, Illinois has been at the vanguard of debate and controversy surround the 16th Amendment for almost two decades. In 1984 he embarked upon a year-long project to examine the process of the ratification of the 16th Amendment and to determine whether or not it had been lawfully adopted as part of the U.S. Constitution. The culmination of Benson's work is the book, "The Law That Never Was."


That evening I said, "Okay, the judge has given us our marching orders. The only thing we have to do is go to all 48 states and get the documentation" to see if the documents have any validity. The attorney said, "Bill, you're crazy, you can't do that." I said, "Sure you can."

Q: How long did it take to do that?

A: It took a full year. There is not one state -- not one -- that has ratified the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the most amazing documents I found was in the national archives in Washington D.C. -- a 16-page memorandum written by Ruben J. Clark, then the attorney for Secretary of State Philander Chase Knox, on February 15, 1913. What he says is that in the certified copies of the amendment passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the 16th Amendment, it appears that only four of those resolutions -- Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee and New Mexico -- have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly what was proposed by Congress. The other 33 resolutions contain either errors of capitalization, spelling or wording. ...

The law says it must be ratified exactly as written. Letter for letter.

[Ice]

Wiki :laugh4:

The Law That Never Was (http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm)






WND Exclusive SUNDAY Q&A
'The law that never was'
Geoff Metcalf's interview answers question, 'Is 16th Amendment legal?' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17398)





The law says it must be ratified exactly as written. Letter for letter.

Work of one man Gawain. Has this been independently verified by multiple sources?

Until the courts rule against the amendment, it stands.

I to can make up a bunch of things "I supposedly did" and put it on a website.

I also like have you make fun of wiki, but fail to put up an scholarly evidence.

Edit: The irony is, wiki had these "conspiracy theories" listed in the article.

It says the courts ruled against all of these.

United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986); Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9103 (2d Cir. 1984); Sisk v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 58, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9433 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9308 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827 (1988); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9518 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987); Brown v. Commissioner, 53 T.C.M. (CCH) 94, T.C. Memo 1987-78, CCH Dec. 43,696(M) (1987); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 87-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9296 (7th Cir. 1987); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9184 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. House, 617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9562 (W.D. Mich. 1985).

Feel free to read on.

[Ice]

To put it simply Gawain, for me to believe these claims, I either need to see A) scholarly evidence (not some random crap on a website) by multiple sources to support your claim or a court ruling.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Work of one man Gawain. Has this been independently verified by multiple sources?

Transcript of Dr. Edwin Vieira's Presentation at the National Press Club, June 29, 2000 (http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech.htm)


So, in what I call "the program of the four I's," Investigate, Inculpate, Indict, Incarcerate, [audience laughter] the first and most important step must be investigation. The machinery of investigation should center around a Citizen's Constitutional Investigatory Commission, composed of legal scholars, historians, other qualified individuals who are capable of assessing and arriving at correct conclusions from pertinent evidence. This Commission, however, must not seek any governmental direction, assistance, or other involvement. Public officials may appear before it as witnesses, and indeed many should be summoned to testify and to submit documentary evidence. But otherwise, no public official should be allowed to participate in such a Commission's work, as any such connection would raise insoluble conflicts of interest.

The Commission should be empowered to investigate at least four issues.

First, whether the "16th Amendment" was validly ratified in 1913. That will require an in-depth analysis of all the materials that have been collected in The Law That Never Was and whatever else can be assembled and all of the circumstances that led to the generation of those materials.

Second, if the Commission determines that the alleged "16th Amendment" was not validly ratified, the Commission should then determine whether a tax on incomes from individual's labor, professions, wages, and salaries, is a direct tax or an excise tax, as those terms are used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, of the Constitution. That's because, as one of the speakers pointed out earlier today, there is some dispute among the government, and also among constitutional scholars, as to what kind of tax an income tax is. And we're going to cover all the bases, or this Commission should cover all the bases. So such an investigation will entail an in-depth analysis of direct and indirect taxes in English and American Colonial law in the century or so preceding the War of Independence and ratification of the Constitution. Because we want to know what those words meant in 1789, not what they mean today to somebody in the Department of Justice or the Internal Revenue Service.

Third, if a tax on individual income from labor is held to be an excise by the Commission, then the Commission should determine an issue that was also broached earlier this morning, whether such a tax constitutes a badge or incidence of slavery or involuntary servitude, and is therefore unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment. I won't go into this in great detail, but you figure it out. The premise of this tax is that the tax is generated by labor, labor creates this tax. And the tax is taken, in principle, directly from the labor. Which, of course, to the government, has no value except in so far as it produces the wealth that can expropriated. This is precisely the master-slave theory of wealth generation. And I think if one went back to the antebellum American and Colonial literature, you would find a great deal of information on that subject which would verify that interpretation. In any event, that particular issue has to be settled.

And, finally, if the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified, if a tax on incomes from individual labor is a direct tax, or if such a tax is a badge or incident of slavery, then the Commission should determine why officials in all branches of the national government have enforced this tax since 1913, and in particular, why they have done so since publication of The Law That Never Was and all the litigation on the findings in that book brought in public view this issue.

One important aspect of such a Commission's work, would be a comprehensive search for documentary evidence, Federal and state Freedom of Information Acts could be used, national archives, state archives, Presidential libraries, compilations of papers of public figures that are maintained in universities, and so forth and so on, all of those need to be searched.

Another important aspect of the work must be public hearings, hopefully to be held in various places throughout the country, during which testimony will be taken and documentary evidence submitted. This, not only for the Commission's immediate work, but for the purpose of educating people in the various locales about what's going on and what these issues are.

And eventually the Commission should publish its findings, together with all testimony and documentary evidence suitably printed and bound, what, forty, fifty, sixty, a hundred, volumes, right? Reminds me of that wonderful work that was produced in 1945-46, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, we could almost use that title. These materials then should be presented immediately to Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Legislatures of the several states that were involved in the ratification of the "16th Amendment". If the Commission's findings establish the tax on individual income from labor is unconstitutional, each of these governmental recipients should be instructed to take appropriate action. Now, you note that the word I use is "instructed." Not, asked, petitioned, begged, or implored. For, faced with findings that the income tax is unconstitutional, theirs will be the constitutional duty to act. I presume, however, being something of a cynic, ... you know people often call me a pessimist. And I like to ask them, you know, what's the definition of a pessimist? A pessimist is an optimist who knows the facts [audience laughter]. I've been in this business a while. And it gets dirtier the deeper you dig. So, I presume, that no matter what findings are presented to these public officials, they will not disestablish the individual income tax on their own, anymore than they would disestablish the Federal Reserve system, simply because someone such as myself proves that the constitutional dollar is a silver coin, not a piece of paper [audience applause]. Or any more than they will give up their fantastic dreams for a New World Order simply because the Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as a nation among nations, not as a satrapy of some global empire [audience applause].

Rather, I anticipate that they will do everything within their power to obstruct, obfuscate, and delay, if not derail entirely, the Commission's investigation, and then to criticize, belittle, and ridicule the Commission's findings. Because, let's face the facts, the income tax is one of the major props of the power structure. Enough said! At that point, though, finally armed with the whole truth on one side, and face to face with the political classes' intransigence on the other, the American people will be forced to decide whether they are sheep or men, whether they can mount a grass-roots political movement to throw these elitists out of office once and for all and reassert self-government in this country, or accept the other alternative.

It will be very interesting to see what happens. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen [audience applause].

[Ice]

.........

That answers absolutely nothing other than if it was one person researching or not. I'm still waiting to see the official sources they used, the conclusion they came to, and the legal basis for this conclusion.

Come on Gawain. You are the one challenging the government here. Surely you can do better than crappy conspiracy theory websites?

Have you any input on those court cases I posted?

Detailed studies perhaps?

Oh by the way, feel free to address my other posts specifically about the federal the reserve.

[Marshal Murat]

First Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States)

Second Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States)

Panic of 1837 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837)



McCulloch v. Maryland justifies both 1st and 2nd.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes

They can collect taxes. Hurray!


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,

They can also regulate money.

Well, they can delegate the responsibility that they have, since it is explicitly given to them in the Constitution and not given over to state powers.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Come on Gawain. You are the one challenging the government here. Surely you can do better than crappy conspiracy theory websites?


A simple reading of the constitution will do.


Lets argue one point at a time. Does the constitution say that congress can coin money(not print money) and regulate the value thereof?


* Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 . The Congress shall have Power…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

* Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 . The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

* Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 . The Congress shall have Power…To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 originally said


* Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 . The Congress shall have Power…To emit bills, coin Money,regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

But it was struck down as they said paper money would lead to ruin.

[Marshal Murat]

And
they also said that slaves were 3/5ths a person.
Only white, landowning males could vote.
Lead was good for you! :2thumbsup:

Some ideas are bad from the beginning, others are run out because they are bad. But considering your 'strict' interpretation, why are we allowing only Russia to be part of the Security council? The Ukrainians, Belorussians and everyone else in the former U.S.S.R. should have a seat, since they were Soviet Socialist Republics.
Then again, why give a seat to them?

[Ice]

Well Gawain, I decided to look up one of the cases.


Marvin D. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America and Internal Revenue Service,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-2969.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 30, 1988. [FN*]


http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/miller.htm


In the eyes of the authors, the most damning evidence of the illegality of sixteenth amendment is a 1913 memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State to then Secretary of State Knox outlining the minor grammatical discrepancies in the instruments ratified in many of the states. This circuit has squarely addressed the merits of the ratification argument in two recent cases. United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (7th Cir.1986) (73 years of application of the amendment is very persuasive on the question of validity); United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir.1986) (amendment treated as properly adopted under the "enrolled bill rule"). In Thomas, we explained that: Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of the ratification to the Secretary of State.... Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.... [the defendant] insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.... [his] decision is now beyond review. Id. at 1253 (emphasis in original). See also United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1036, 107 S.Ct. 888, 93 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987) (propriety of the ratification process is a political question).

By all means though, don't believe me. See, it's easy to look up past rulings about this kind of stuff. Give it a try.

[Xiahou]

These arguments against the 16th amendment mainly hinge on nitpicking over a comma instead of a semi-colon or a capitalized vs uncapitalized letter. Ridiculous complaints imo, and the courts have agreed.

On a side note, I see that Pennsylvania never ratified or even took up the amendment- good on us. :beam:

The Federal Reserve seems pretty cut and dry to me- congress is allowed to coin money, regulate the value, ect. By extension, if Congress decides to setup an organization to do so on it's behalf, it's still done by the will of Congress.

edit: People can argue against both the income tax and the Fed, but I think the Constitutional arguments against both fall flat.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Some ideas are bad from the beginning,

Yes like the Fed. Did you look at that Graph I posted.


Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.... [his] decision is now beyond review.

So he could simply over rule the constitution? This is nonsense. You people better wake up as to whats been going on here. And how about just adressing my point on the Fed 1st.

Also the 2nd bank was shut down after only 10 years because of corupption and we went almost 100 years without one and did fine


Try this
The Constitution of the United States
&
Honest Money (http://www.honestmoneyreport.com/archives/2006/1027.php)


So there we have a reiteration of the most critical issues contained within the seven monetary clauses of the Constitution, including a discussion of legal tender thrown in for good measure. We will now offer a “list” of summary points.

* The Constitution mandates a monetary system of gold and silver coin – NO BILLS OF CREDIT (paper money).

* The STANDARD of this system is the Silver Dollar – 371.25 grains of fine silver – a SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF SILVER, as in Honest Weights and Measures.

* There was no gold dollar at this time, only an amount of gold exchangeable for a silver dollar according to the exchange rate of 15 to 1.

* Congress was granted the power to COIN & to BORROW MONEY, not print, emit, or create money.

* The States could not force anyone to accept anything but silver and gold as legal tender in payment of debt.

The above are the main points that most “experts” in this subject would agree upon as being the main acceptable points denoting our constitutional monetary system. Now we will discuss a few points that we disagree with conventional monetary historians and theorists on.

[Ice]

Yes like the Fed. Did you look at that Graph I posted.



Sure did. Did you read any of the arguments I posted?


So he could simply over rule the constitution? This is nonsense. You people better wake up as to whats been going on here. And how about just adressing my point on the Fed 1st.

Of course not. He can rule. Then it can be challenged it court. If the court rules it's constitutional it is. If not, it isn't. You better wake up. Like I said, why don't you review all those court cases I posted on the issues. Also, ever hear of stare decisis?

I did address your point about the FED. Look above.


Also the 2nd bank was shut down after only 10 years because of corupption and we went almost 100 years without one and did fine

Proof, or just more garbage rhetoric? What do you consider "fine", Gawain?

[TevashSzat]

But considering your 'strict' interpretation

While we're talking about that, strict constructionists would actually never have allowed for a bank of the united states either, and come to think of it, the Constitution never allowed for judicial review either...

Most of the current government is based on broad constructionist thinkings since constitution never allowed for the buildings of highways, almost all of the current departments of the executive, and the US army was NEVER meant to be so heavily prioritized in the government budget. The right to bear arms is only in the Bill of Rights so America could have as little an army as possible and just use militia in times of war

[Xiahou]

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2006/images/0106_1.gif
For comparison, here's a similar chart for the UK:
https://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1906/91733738jp3.gif
I guess the Federal Reserve must also be responsible for inflation in the UK as well.... or maybe there's more to it than some would have you think?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

While we're talking about that, strict constructionists would actually never have allowed for a bank of the united states either,

You mean the anti federalist(actually the federalists) Jefferson and the Viriginians. :laugh4: Hamilton bribed them by saying he would have the capital moved from NY to Virginia(Washington DC).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I guess the Federal Reserve must also be responsible for inflation in the UK as well.... or maybe there's more to it than some would have you think?

I hate to tell you this but the English took back america long ago. Their national bank is owned by the same people and again is one of the main reasons we revolted.

[TevashSzat]

You mean the anti federalist(actually the federalists) Jefferson and the Viriginians. :laugh4: Hamilton bribed them by saying he would have the capital moved from NY to Virginia(Washington DC).

Jefferson and Madison weren't antifederalists. They were staunch federalist and Madison wrote most of the federalist papers, but were Republicans.

Also, Hamilton didn't bribe them, he merely helped along the efforts of people in Congress already trying to do so.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Jefferson and Madison weren't antifederalists

The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today's Democratic Party.


Constitutional Topic: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html)



Fearing a return to monarchist ideals, if not to actual monarchy, Jefferson became virtual leader of the Anti-Federalist forces. He drew to himself a group of like-minded men who began to call themselves Republicans—a group to which the present Democratic party traces its origin.

Confusing no? Just proves yesterdays liberals are todays conservatives.

Thomas Jefferson
Postwar Republican Leader (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0859021.html)

[Marshal Murat]

I hate to tell you this but the English took back america long ago. Their national bank is owned by the same people and again is one of the main reasons we revolted.

Explain.

[TevashSzat]

The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today's Democratic Party.


Constitutional Topic: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html)




Confusing no? Just proves yesterdays liberals are todays conservatives.

Thomas Jefferson
Postwar Republican Leader (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0859021.html)

Well, although Anti-Federalist may have largely joined the Republicans, Jefferson and Madison were never Anti-Federalists, they were merely against Hamilton's federalist principles.

[AntiochusIII]

Jefferson and Madison weren't antifederalists.They were.

Also, Hamilton didn't bribe them, he merely helped along the efforts of people in Congress already trying to do so.One could make a case that it's a political concession to the powerful State of Virginia.

Of course, that makes it all the more "legitimate," since the people who're doing this political stuff are the same people who wrote the damn document in the first place, so you know.

...

Not that I'm taking the lunatic position that Gawain's advocating. Ron Paul really is an international joke, a kind of anti-mainstream figure regardless of sense and reason :/

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not that I'm taking the lunatic position that Gawain's advocating.

So now supporting the constitution is taking the lunatic position :shame:

[TevashSzat]

They were.


I should clarify this:

The Anti-Federalist were the ones against the ratification of the Constitution, notable figures include Paul Revere.

There were two types of Federalist, the first of which were those who wanted the Constitution ratified, including Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison, while the second type was what Hamilton called him and his supporters in response the the formation of the Republicans by Jefferson and Madison.

While Jefferson and Madison were against Hamilton, and may be viewed as those who were against the Federalists, they never called themselves the Anti-Federalists. They were merely Republicans

[Ice]

So now supporting the constitution is taking the lunatic position :shame:

No, Gawain, but taking YOUR extreme position is lunatic.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

1792 EV
George Washington Federalist 132 (50.00)
John Adams Federalist 77 (29.17)
George Clinton Anti-Federalist 50 (18.94)
Thomas Jefferson Anti-Federalist 4 (1.52)
Aaron Burr Anti-Federalist 1 (0.38)
1796 EV
John Adams Federalist 71 (25.72)
Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican 68 (24.64)
Thomas Pinckney Federalist 59 (21.38)
Aaron Burr Democratic-Republican 30 (10.87)
Samuel Adams - 15 (5.43)
Oliver Ellsworth - 11 (3.99)
George Clinton - 7 (2.54)
John Jay - 5 (1.81)
James Iredell - 3 (1.09)
Samuel Johnson - 2 (0.72)
George Washington - 2 (0.72)
John Henry - 2 (0.72)
Charles Pinckney - 1 (0.36)

Results of Presidential Elections (http://www.usconstitution.net/elections.html)

Hamilton was a Monarchist.

[TevashSzat]

Then heres some links:

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election)


1792 George Washington John Adams (Federalist)
George Clinton (Democratic-Republican)

Us Election Atlas (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/)


1792 Presidential Election Results

Presidential
Candidate Home State Political Party Electoral Vote
George Washington Virginia Federalist 132 97.8%
John Adams Massachusetts Federalist 77 57.0%
George Clinton New York Democratic-Republican 50 37.0%
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Democratic-Republican 4 3.0%
Aaron Burr New York Democratic-Republican 1 0.7%



Encyclopedia Britannica (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-67649/Results-of-the-American-presidential-election-1792-Presidential-Candidate-Political)


Results of the American presidential election, 1792

Presidential Candidate Political Party Electoral Votes Popular Votes1
George Washington Federalist 132
John Adams Federalist 77
George Clinton Democratic-Republican 50
Thomas Jefferson 4
Aaron Burr 1


All come from sources more highly respected than yours, and while although some do not specifically list the party of Thomas Jefferson, all of them show that Anti-Federalists never ran for the presidency as a party at all

Edit:

Also btw,

wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)


The resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to legislatures of the several states on July 12, 1909.

On February 25, 1913, the Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution.

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[16]

Alabama (August 10, 1909)
The Commonwealth of 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 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the amendment)
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911)
The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:

Connecticut
Florida, which rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states
Rhode Island
Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Virginia

And from your much beloved site,

Us Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a2.html#Q32)


Q32. "I didn't find myself enlightened by the answer.... Perhaps a better way to phrase the question would be, why couldn't an income tax be levied without the 16th amendment? I know that Congress tried to pass an income tax before the 16th amendment but the Supreme Court struck it down. What was the Supreme Court's rationale for doing so? If, as the FAQ says 'the 16th Amendment authorizes the Congress to lay and collect a tax on any income,' what kinds of income could they tax before, and what part of the Constitution so limits them?"

A. The question, then, is WHY was it was needed. The issue is not that the Constitution otherwise forbids an income tax, but that it does not otherwise permit one. Without an amendment to specifically state that an income tax was constitutional, any income tax proposed by the Congress would be subject to judicial review, and possible overturning by the Court; and then who knows what kind of chaos that would cause. Say the government levied an income tax in 1910, and in 1913 the Court determined the tax was unconstitutional. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the Court would order all collected funds be returned to the people. Yikes!

In 1895, the Court ruled that a tax from income derived from property was unconstitutional based on Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. If you read that, you'll see that it is unclear how this makes an income tax unconstitutional, but the Court sometimes deals in legal technicalities, and this technicality divided the court 5-4 against the tax. The amendment was ratified 18 years later, and prevented such cases from ever needing to appear in court.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

All come from sources more highly respected than yours, and while although some do not specifically list the party of Thomas Jefferson, all of them show that Anti-Federalists never ran for the presidency as a party at all

It doesnt change the fact that Jefferson was the leader of the anti federalists. He was indeed a federalist until he realised what Hamilton was up to. To bad they didnt shoot him sooner. The guy wanted to make Washington King. Even his so called friends Jefferson and Madison abhored his true intentions. He was an elitest

[CrossLOPER]

You have yet to answer my question.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You have yet to answer my question.

What question?Is Ron Paul a joke? No he is not.


Also btw,

wikipedia

Stop quoting that as its worthless on this topic,

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And from your much beloved site,

Us Constitution

My beloved site. Who wrote that crap?


The issue is not that the Constitution otherwise forbids an income tax, but that it does not otherwise permit one.

Bull dinky. Congress has the power to levy taxes. No one denies that. Its whether they have the right to do so unaportioned.


Without an amendment to specifically state that an income tax was constitutional, any income tax proposed by the Congress would be subject to judicial review,

There were 5 instances where congress levied a tax as stipulated by the constitution to pay off our debts. The taxes were aportioned among the states and the taxes cancelled when the debt was paid. Twice they tried to pass unapportioned income taxes and guess what. The courts said they were unconstitutional.


In 1895, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In that year, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. The Court concluded the tax imposed by the Act on “rents or income of real estate” was not significantly distinct from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, the Court classified the tax as a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States.

Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether the income tax was a direct or indirect tax. As a result, Congress sought to remove any confusion by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment, which was “allegedly” adopted in 1913, states:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Immediately after the Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted another income tax act similar to the 1894 Act. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional. In 1916, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the scope of the Amendment. These decisions were analyzed in a 1980 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The report, prepared by an agency of Congress, discussed the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax:

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

As stated by CRS, the Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax or repeal or revoke the existing clauses. Indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity and direct taxes were still required to be apportioned among the several States.

If the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or modify its existing power, then what did the Amendment accomplish? Since the Amendment states that income taxes are not subject to the rule apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the category of indirect taxes. This means Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Direct taxes must be imposed on the several States according to the rule of apportionment.

The 1980 CRS report also made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:

Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.

The 16th Amendment is not the Source of the Federal Income Tax (http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm)

[Xiahou]

That link is guilty of some seriously tortured logic, Gawain. Brushaber v Union Pacific did note that the 16th didn't create any new authority for congress to tax because that authority already existed. They're cherry-picking the parts that they want to make their false argument, while completely ignoring the rest. Most importantly, is that the SCOTUS did not overturn income tax in it's decision.

Rather than reading someone's confused interpretation of the ruling, let's try reading the ruling itself- it is quite unambiguous:

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.Pretty clear, yes? That's directly from Chief Justice White's majority opinion. Read (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=240&page=1) the whole opinion if you want to see it for yourself.

[Husar]

Explain.
The links I posted explain this with lots of details. They basically say that most national banks are owned by a few rich people who work together to keep themselves rich and become even richer and richer and richer and richer and richer and richer and richer. I don't know why, but apparently they like money or something. :shrug:

[Redleg]

Lets see Congress has the authority and the responsibility to levy taxes.
Congress established an Income Tax through the amendment process to the constitution and it was ratified by the states.

An agruement based on unconstitutionality is on its face false - the system was designed using the constitutional process with an amendment to the same.

Ron Paul is dead wrong on this desire for returning only to the base document of the constitution - the founding fathers established a system in order to change the document and it was followed.

arguements about the un-constitutionality of the Income Tax are on the surface wrong.

Now one might argue about the establishement of the IRS itself - but one can not argue about the income tax constitutionality.

[Geoffrey S]

To be honest, I can sort of see where this is coming from. Ron Paul is also running on a platform of strict isolationism. Reinstating the gold standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve do make more sense in that light, if the only thing you're going to bother about is the US economy rather than its place in a global economy. But in the current situation, it'd be lunacy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lets see Congress has the authority and the responsibility to levy taxes.

Within the limitations of the constitution.


Congress established an Income Tax through the amendment process to the constitution and it was ratified by the states.

It did no such thing. It already had that power.


An agruement based on unconstitutionality is on its face false - the system was designed using the constitutional process with an amendment to the same.

Income tax has always been constitutional as long as its apportioned. It is unconstitutional in the manner it is enforced however. The purpose of the constitution is to limit government not give it more power. Plus again it was never properly ratified.


Pretty clear, yes? That's directly from Chief Justice White's majority opinion. Read the whole opinion if you want to see it for yourself.

No its not. If the government could not tax your income before that amendment and SCOTUS said it gave congress no new taxing power then your income is still not taxable after it. If they could not have an unapportioned income tax prior to it they cant have one after it. Pretty clear yes?

[Xiahou]

No its not. If the government could not tax your income before that amendment and SCOTUS said it gave congress no new taxing power then your income is still not taxable after it. If they could not have an unapportioned income tax prior to it they cant have one after it. Pretty clear yes?Gawain, read the ruling instead of listening to other people's spin on it. I quoted the "money shot" but read the rest of it if you feel the need. White stated that the 16th did not grant congress any new powers for an income tax, since they already had complete authority to enact one. What the 16th amendment did do was eliminate the need for apportionment. I even bolded that portion directly from the selection I quoted. I don't know how you can claim with a straight face that the ruling didn't say something that's written right in it in plain english.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What the 16th amendment did do was eliminate the need for apportionment.

That would give congress new taxing powers. SCOTUS said they didnt get any. And again to all f you it was never properly ratified. The 14th wasnt either. And it is wrong is so many ways its not funny. Again its one of the main reasons for the revolution


An excerpt from Ellen Hodgson Brown's Web of Debt:

Ellen Brown wrote:

In 1751, King George II enacted a ban on the issue of all new paper money in the New England colonies, forcing the colonists to borrow instead from the British bankers. This ban was continued under King George III, who succeeded his father in 1752.

In 1764, Franklin went to London to petition Parliament to lift the ban. When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes. "The streets are covered with beggars and tramps," he observed. When he asked why, he was told the country had too many workers. The rich were already overburdened with taxes and could not pay more to relieve the poverty of the working classes. Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He is quoted as replying:

"We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."

His English listeners had trouble believing this, since when their poor houses and jails had become too cluttered, the English had actually shipped their poor to the Colonies. When the directors of the Bank of England asked what was responsible for the booming economy of the young colonies, Franklin reportedly replied:

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it to pay the government's approved expenses and charities. We make sure it is issued in proper proportions to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. . . . In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. [B]Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury."

Banks were limited to lending money into the economy; and since more money was always owed back in principal and interest (or "usury") than was lent in the original loans, there was never enough money in circulation to pay the interest and still keep workers fully employed. The government, on the other hand, had two ways of getting money into the economy: it could both lend and spend the money into circulation. It could spend enough new money to cover the interest due on the money it lent, keeping the money supply in "proper proportion" and preventing the "impossible contract" problem - the problem of having more money owed back on loans than was created in the loans themselves.

After the Bank of England pressured the British Parliament to pass a Currency Act making it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money, the colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks. A year later, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just like in England.


England lost the colonies thanks to the Bank of England!!

As was previously stated, the colonists were very poor and took little money with them from England. The settlers bartered their goods and services with each other. Later, Indian Wampum, black and white shells, tobacco etc., etc were used as currency. Eventually a circulating medium called Colonial Scrip was printed by the Governors of the various Colonies. With this release of purchasing power, great prosperity came to the Colonies since they had an abundance of produce and goods available.

The greedy banksters of the Bank of England soon took steps to destroy the U.S. even before it was born:

"III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any governor or commander in chief for the time being, in all or any of the said colonies or plantations, shall, from and after the said first day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, give his assent to any act or order of assembly contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, every such governor or commander in chief shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand pounds, and shall be immediately dismissed from his government, and for ever after rendered incapable of any public office or place of trust." (Currency Act of 1764).

Secrets of the Bank of England Revealed at Last!! (http://www.reformation.org/bank-of-england.html)

[Tribesman]

Now I know it might have been cruel to say that Gawain is getting his information from lunatic websites , but hey that last link comes up with crap like http://www.reformation.org/synagogue-of-satan.html:dizzy2:
Oh ....WARNING better add an edit saying some poeple might not want to read the crap in that link .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Try attacking the message instead of the messenger .

[Husar]

Now I know it might have been cruel to say that Gawain is getting his information from lunatic websites , but hey that last link comes up with crap like http://www.reformation.org/synagogue-of-satan.html:dizzy2:
Oh ....WARNING better add an edit saying some poeple might not want to read the crap in that link .
Very interesting link, I didn't know that yet, maybe I should throw away my crosses.

[Ironside]

After the Bank of England pressured the British Parliament to pass a Currency Act making it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money, the colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks. A year later, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just like in England.


So the colonies made paper money, so therefore they forbade them in the constitution? :inquisitive:


Lets start with printing money. Its forbidden by the constitution. Only the minting of gold and silver coins can be used to pay debts.

And currently the only system able to run with 100% employment are quite authorian, has something to do with avoiding the inflation that occurs if people's salary is decided only by thier rarity.

[Xiahou]

That would give congress new taxing powers. SCOTUS said they didnt get any. And again to all f you it was never properly ratified. The 14th wasnt either. And it is wrong is so many ways its not funny. Again its one of the main reasons for the revolutionFor the last time, read the ruling. Chief Justice White explained it all quite clearly and at length:

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

240 U.S. 1

FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
No. 140.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.
Decided January 24, 1916.

[240 U.S. 1, 2] Messrs. Julien T. Davies, Brainard Tolles, Garrard Glenn, and Martin A. Schenck for appellant.

Mr. Henry W. Clark for appellee.

[240 U.S. 1, 5] Solicitor General Davis, Assistant Attorney General Wallace, and Attorney General Gregory for the United States.

[240 U.S. 1, 9]

Mr. Chief Justic e White delivered the opinion of the court:

As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913 ( II., chap. 16, 38 Stat. at L. 166). Because of constitutional questions duly arising the case is here on direct appeal from a decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for relief was stated.

The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, of the peculiar relation of the corporation to the stockholders, and their particular interests resulting from many of the administrative provisions of the assailed act, of the confusion, wrong, and multiplicity [240 U.S. 1, 10] of suits and the absence of all means of redress which would result if the corporation paid the tax and complied with the act in other respects without protest, as it was alleged it was its intention to do. To put out of the way a question of jurisdiction we at once say that in view of these averments and the ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, sustaining the right of a stockholder to sue to restrain a corporation under proper averments from voluntarily paying a tax charged to be unconstitutional on the ground that to permit such a suit did not violate the prohibitions of 3224, Revised Statutes (Comp. Stat. 1913, 5947), against enjoining the enforcement of taxes, we are of opinion that the contention here made that there was no jurisdiction of the cause, since to entertain it would violate the provisions of the Revised Statutes referred to, is without merit. Before coming to dispose of the case on the merits, however, we observe that the defendant corporation having called the attention of the government to the pendency of the cause and the nature of the controversy and its unwillingness to voluntarily refuse to comply with the act assailed, the United States, as amicus curiae, has at bar been heard both orally and by brief for the purpose of sustaining the decree.

Aside from averments as to citizenship and residence, recitals as to the provisions of the statute, and statements as to the business of the corporation, contained in the first ten paragraphs of the bill, advanced to sustain jurisdiction, the bill alleged twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of paragraphs or subdivisions. As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment.

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

But let us by a demonstration of the error of the fundamental proposition as to the significance of the Amendment dispel the confusion necessarily arising from the arguments deduced from it. Before coming, however, to the text of the Amendment, to the end that its significance may be determined in the light of the previous legislative and judicial history of the subject with which the Amendment is concerned, and with a knowledge of the conditions which presumptively led up to its adoption, and hence of the purpose it was intended to accomplish, we make a brief statement on those subjects.

That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never [240 U.S. 1, 13] been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes. Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of art. 1, 8, cl. 1, that 'all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' and to the limitations of art I., 2, cl. 3, that 'direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,' and of art 1, 9, cl. 4, that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.' In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.' It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, 19 L. ed. 482, 485, that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted. In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced [240 U.S. 1, 14] by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions. At the very beginning, however, there arose differences of opinion concerning the criteria to be applied in determining in which of the two great subdivisions a tax would fall. Without pausing to state at length the basis of these differences and the consequences which arose from them, as the whole subject was elaborately reviewed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, we make a condensed statement which is in substance taken from what was said in that case. Early the differences were manifested in pressing on the one hand and opposing on the other, the passage of an act levying a tax without apportionment on carriages 'for the conveyance of persons,' and when such a tax was enacted the question of its repugnancy to the Constitution soon came to this court for determination. Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 1 L. ed. 556. It was held that the tax came within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and therefore did not require apportionment, and while this conclusion was agreed to by all the members of the court who took part in the decision of the case, there was not an exact coincidence in the reasoning by which the conclusion was sustained. Without stating the minor differences, it may be said with substantial accuracy that the divergent reasoning was this: On the one hand, that the tax was not in the class of direct taxes requiring apportionment, because it was not levied directly on property because of its ownership, but rather on its use, and was therefore an excise, duty, or impost; and on the other, that in any event the class of direct taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because of its ownership. Putting out of view the difference of reasoning which led to the concurrent conclusion in the Hylton Case, it is undoubted that it came to pass in legislative practice that the line of demarcation between the two great classes of direct taxes on the one hand and excises, duties, and [240 U.S. 1, 15] imposts on the other, which was exemplified by the ruling in that case, was accepted and acted upon. In the first place this is shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership. And this practical construction came in theory to be the accepted one, since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of the text writers. 1 Kent, Com. 254, 256; 1 Story, Const. 955; Cooley, Const. Lim. 5th ed. *480; Miller, Constitution, 237; Pom. Const. Law, 281; 1 Hare, Const. Law, 249, 250; Burroughs, Taxn. 502; Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation, 225.

Upon the lapsing of a considerable period after the repeal of the income tax laws referred to, in 1894 [28 Stat. at L. 509, chap. 349], an act was passed laying a tax on incomes from all classes of property and other sources of revenue which was not apportioned, and which therefore was of course assumed to come within the classification of excises, duties, and imposts which were subject to the rule of uniformity, but not to the rule of apportionment. The constitutional validity of this law was challenged on the ground that it did not fall within the class of excises, duties, and imposts, [240 U.S. 1, 16] but was direct in the constitutional sense, and was therefore void for want of apportionment, and that question came to this court and was passed upon in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912. The court, fully recognizing in the passage which we have previously quoted the allembracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excises, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity, held the law to be unconstitutional in substance for these reasons: Concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this purpose contemplated by the Constitution. ( 157 U.S. 581 .) Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent. As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them. Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.

This is the text of the Amendment:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment.

The statute was enacted October 3, 1913, and provided for a general yearly income tax from December to December of each year. Exceptionally, however, it fixed a first period embracing only the time from March 1, to December 31, 1913, and this limited retroactivity is assailed as repugnant to the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, and as inconsistent with the 16th Amendment itself. But the date of the retroactivity did not extend beyond the time when the Amendment was operative, and there can be no dispute that there was power by virtue of the Amendment during that period to levy the tax, without apportionment, and so far as the limitations of the Constitution in other respects are concerned, the contention is not open, since in Stockdale v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 20 Wall. 323, 331, 22 L. ed. 348, 351, in sustaining a provision in a prior income tax law which was assailed because of its retroactive character, it was said:

'The right of Congress to have imposed this tax by a new statute, although the measure of it was governed by the income of the past year, cannot be doubted; much less can it be doubted that it could impose such a tax on the income of the current year, though part of that year had elapsed when the statute was passed. The joint resolution of July 4th, 1864 [13 Stat. at L. 417], imposed a tax of 5 per cent upon all income of the previous year, although one tax on it had already been paid, and no one doubted the validity of the tax or attempted to resist it.' [240 U.S. 1, 21] The statute provides that the tax should not apply to enumerated organizations or corporations, such as labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations, mutual savings banks, etc., and the argument is that as the Amendment authorized a tax on incomes 'from whatever source derived,' by implication it excluded the power to make these exemptions. But this is only a form of expressing the erroneous contention as to the meaning of the Amendment, which we have already disposed of. And so far as this alleged illegality is based on other provisions of the Constitution, the contention is also not open, since it was expressly considered and disposed of in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 108, 173 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 422, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312

Without expressly stating all the other contentions, we summarize them to a degree adequate to enable us to typify and dispose of all of them.

1. The statute levies one tax called a normal tax on all incomes of individuals up to $20,000, and from that amount up, by gradations, a progressively increasing tax, called an additional tax, is imposed. No tax, however, is levied upon incomes of unmarried individuals amounting to $3, 000 or less, nor upon incomes of married persons amounting to $4,000 or less. The progressive tax and the exempted amounts, it is said, are based on wealth alone, and the tax is therefore repugnant to the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.

2. The act provides for collecting the tax at the source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax on interest due on bonds and mortgages, unless the owner to whom the interest is payable gives a notice that he claims an exemption. This duty cast upon corporations, because of the cost to which they are subjected, is asserted to be repugnant to due process of law as a taking of their property without compensation, and we recapitulate various contentions as to discrimination against corporations and against individuals, [240 U.S. 1, 22] predicated on provisions of the act dealing with the subject.

(a) Corporations indebted upon coupon and registered bonds are discriminated against, since corporations not so indebted are relieved of any labor or expense involved in deducting and paying the taxes of individuals on the income derived from bonds.

(b) Of the class of corporations indebted as above stated, the law further discriminates against those which have assumed the payment of taxes on their bonds, since although some or all of their bondholders may be exempt from taxation, the corporations have no means of ascertaining such fact, and it would therefore result that taxes would often be paid by such corporations when no taxes were owing by the individuals to the government.

(c) The law discriminates against owners of corporate bonds in favor of individuals none of whose income is derived from such property, since bondholders are, during the interval between the deducting and the paying of the tax on their bonds, deprived of the use of the money so withheld.

(d) Again, corporate bondholders are discriminated against because the law does not release them from payment of taxes on their bonds even after the taxes have been deducted by the corporation, and therefore if, after deduction, the corporation should fail, the bondholders would be compelled to pay the tax a second time.

(e) Owners of bonds the taxes on which have been assumed by the corporation are discriminated against because the payment of the taxes by the corporation does not relieve the bondholders of their duty to include the income from such bonds in making a return of all income, the result being a double payment of the taxes, labor and expense in applying for a refund, and a deprivation of the use of the sum of the taxes during the interval which elapses before they are refunded. [240 U.S. 1, 23] 3. The provision limiting the amount of interest paid which may be deducted from gross income of corporations for the purpose of fixing the taxable income to interest on indebtedness not exceeding one half the sum of bonded indebtedness and paidup capital stock is also charged to be wanting in due process because discriminating between different classes of corporations and individuals.

4. It is urged that want of due process results from the provision allowing individuals to deduct from their gross income dividends paid them by corporations whose incomes are taxed, and not giving such right of deduction to corporations.

5. Want of due process is also asserted to result from the fact that the act allows a deduction of $3,000 or $4,000 to those who pay the normal tax, that is, whose incomes are $20,000 or less, and does not allow the deduction to those whose incomes are greater than $20,000; that is, such persons are not allowed, for the purpose of the additional or progressive tax, a second right to deduct the $3,000 or $4,000 which they have already enjoyed. And a further violation of due process is based on the fact that for the purpose of the additional tax no second right to deduct dividends received from corporations is permitted.

6. In various forms of statement, want of due process, it is moreover insisted, arises from the provisions of the act allowing a deduction for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable income of stated amounts, on the ground that the provisions discriminate between married and single people, and discriminate between husbands and wives who are living together and those who are not.

7. Discrimination and want of due process result, it is said, from the fact that the owners of houses in which they live are not compelled to estimate the rental value in making up their incomes, while those who are living in rented houses and pay rent are not allowed, in making up their taxable income, to deduct rent which they have [240 U.S. 1, 24] paid, and that want of due process also results from the fact that although family expenses are not, as a rule, permitted to be deducted from gross, to arrive at taxable, income, farmers are permitted to omit from their income return certain products of the farm which are susceptible of use by them for sustaining their families during the year.

So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts only a geographical uniformity, and there is not a semblance of ground in any of the propositions for assuming that a violation of such uniformity is complained of. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608, 622 , 46 S. L. ed. 713, 720, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 158 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282 , 58 S. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421.

So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon, it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause. Treat v. White, 181 U.S. 264 , 45 L. ed. 853, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608 , 46 L. ed. 713, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 61 , 49 S. L. ed. 78, 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 158 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282 , 58 S. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421. And no change in the situation here would arise even if it be conceded, as we think it must be, that this doctrine would have no application in a case where, although there was a seeming exercise of the taxing power, the act complained of was so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation, but a confiscation of property; that is, a taking [240 U.S. 1, 25] of the same in violation of the 5th Amendment; or, what is equivalent thereto, was so wanting in basis for classification as to produce such a gross and patent inequality as to inevitably lead to the same conclusion. We say this because none of the propositions relied upon in the remotest degree present such questions. It is true that it is elaborately insisted that although there be no express constitutional provision prohibiting it, the progressive feature of the tax causes it to transcend the conception of all taxation and to be a mere arbitrary abuse of power which must be treated as wanting in due process. But the proposition disregards the fact that in the very early history of the government a progressive tax was imposed by Congress, and that such authority was exerted in some, if not all, of the various income taxes enacted prior to 1894 to which we have previously adverted. And over and above all this the contention but disregards the further fact that its absolute want of foundation in reason was plainly pointed out in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 , 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and the right to urge it was necessarily foreclosed by the ruling in that case made. In this situation it is, of course, superfluous to say that arguments as to the expediency of levying such taxes, or of the economic mistake or wrong involved in their imposition, are beyond judicial cognizance. Besides this demonstration of the want of merit in the contention based upon the progressive feature of the tax, the error in the others is equally well established either by prior decisions or by the adequate bases for classification which are apparent on the face of the assailed provisions; that is, the distinction between individuals and corporations, the difference between various kinds of corporations, etc., etc. Ibid.; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 158 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282 , 58 S. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353, 19 L. ed. 701; National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 70 , 58 S. L. ed. 504, 510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209. In fact, comprehensively surveying all the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 26] relied upon, aside from the erroneous construction of the Amendment which we have previously disposed of, we cannot escape the conclusion that they all rest upon the mistaken theory that although there be differences between the subjects taxed, to differently tax them transcends the limit of taxation and amounts to a want of due process, and that where a tax levied is believed by one who resists its enforcement to be wanting in wisdom and to operate injustice, from that fact in the nature of things there arises a want of due process of law and a resulting authority in the judiciary to exceed its powers and correct what is assumed to be mistaken or unwise exertions by the legislative authority of its lawful powers, even although there be no semblance of warrant in the Constitution for so doing.

We have not referred to a contention that because certain administrative powers to enforce the act were conferred by the statute upon the Secretary of the Treasury, therefore it was void as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we think to state the proposition is to answer it. Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 , 36 L. ed. 294, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 496 , 48 S. L. ed. 525, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320 , 53 L. ed. 1013, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671.

AFFIRMED.

Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.Read it all- it explains your imagined contradiction over an non-apportioned income tax being a new tax power. It's not and White explains why in detail.

Regardless, the important part of his ruling is this:
the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.End of story. How can you argue that's not what the SCOTUS ruled when it's written right in the opinion? :dizzy2:

[Ice]

Try attacking the message instead of the messenger .

Like I've said before Gawain, try using better sources.

You attack me for using wikipedia which actually cites it's sources so you can check, but you continue to use heavily biased, poorly written crap sites that you dig up on a search engine.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So the colonies made paper money, so therefore they forbade them in the constitution?

Yes they did after the disaster with the continentals.


And currently the only system able to run with 100% employment are quite authorian, has something to do with avoiding the inflation that occurs if people's salary is decided only by thier rarity.

Again if going off the gold standard and instigating the Fed were supposed to stop inflation both should be shut down immediatly for making such a mess of it.


For the last time, read the ruling. Chief Justice White explained it all quite clearly and at length:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Ill give you the at length part. Looks like legal mumbo jumbo to me. Once more it wasnt ratified anyway.


End of story. How can you argue that's not what the SCOTUS ruled when it's written right in the opinion?

It all goes back to the legal meaning of that phrase.


You attack me for using wikipedia which actually cites it's sources so you can check, but you continue to use heavily biased, poorly written crap sites that you dig up on a search engine.

I used only one. I can give you the same info from other places if you like.

[Geoffrey S]

Now I know it might have been cruel to say that Gawain is getting his information from lunatic websites , but hey that last link comes up with crap like http://www.reformation.org/synagogue-of-satan.html:dizzy2:
Oh ....WARNING better add an edit saying some poeple might not want to read the crap in that link .
Gah, you got me reading that site now. Now I know the earth is stationary, and the Jesuits created a heliocentric conspiracy...
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

And of course, the US tested their first nuclear weapons at Port Chicago. I'm sure the Jesuits had something to do with that, too...
http://www.reformation.org/port-chicago.html

Naturally, the UN is a plot to create a Catholic Church world domination and a Spanish Inquisition in the US (sorry, I mean Cabotia)...
http://www.reformation.org/united-nations.html

I used only one. I can give you the same info from other places if you like.
Please, by all means do! Reformation.org was extremely entertaining!

[Ice]

I used only one.

One you say? Hmm, Let's review. I had to open a notepad file to save all the "resources you used". Let's go by through them one by one:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm- The price of liberty? I wonder if this site is biased or has an agenda?

http://www.reformation.org/- LOL... go to the home page

http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=23951- Freedom... Underground... enough said...

A youtube video with the word "0wnz" in it.

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm- Look's decent enough, looking through it yields more biased crap.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17398- World net daily.... :wall:

http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech.htm- Note, not .net which is a respectable site, .org.
"This organization was founded in response to the growing concern that noncompliance with the Constitution for the United States of America and most state constitutions is creating a crisis of legitimacy that threatens freedom and civil rights"- heavily biased

http://www.honestmoneyreport.com/archives/2006/1027.php- Host Money report...


I can give you the same info from other places if you like.

Sure, but try to make them scholarly or atleast well balance and written if you can.

Have you ever attended higher education, Gawain? They would laugh at you with these god awful sources.

[Ironside]

Yes they did after the disaster with the continentals.

Still not following you unless you give some more information. As far as I can read of your sources everything went well, until England forbade paper money in the colonies. This would make paper money good, not bad.


Again if going off the gold standard and instigating the Fed were supposed to stop inflation both should be shut down immediatly for making such a mess of it.

Stopping inflation is a bad thing, limiting to like 1-2% is good though. I can agree that they've failed at some periods, like all other nations has done as well, making it hard to draw any conclutions.

[Redleg]

Within the limitations of the constitution.


Correct



It did no such thing. It already had that power.


And the amendment defined that power farther, so why saying it established it might have been over stating it, its not necessarily incorrect either. By defining the tax power in a more definitive manner in regards to Income tax through the amendment process the Congress actually did its job correctly and is why the founding fathers established the amendment process in the first place.



Income tax has always been constitutional as long as its apportioned. It is unconstitutional in the manner it is enforced however. The purpose of the constitution is to limit government not give it more power. Plus again it was never properly ratified.

Actually it was probably ratified when 2/3 of the states voted in favor of the amendment. Callin the IRS unconsitutional might be a valid arguement - but that is not what was stated earlier - the tax is constitutional and the amendment process was followed to define and adjust the way a specific tax was to be handled. The purpose of the constitution serves many purposes - limiting the govenment is only one of those - providing for the common defense and well being of its citizens is also one of those responsibilities - establishing an income tax and defining its scope and breath is within the scope of the government. Small government agencies I am all for - however an arguement about the constitutionality of the Income Tax is once again a false one on its face - the constitution gave the authority to Congress to levy taxes and the amendment continued along that same authority.




No its not. If the government could not tax your income before that amendment and SCOTUS said it gave congress no new taxing power then your income is still not taxable after it. If they could not have an unapportioned income tax prior to it they cant have one after it. Pretty clear yes?


See the above and what has been written by others - the amendment process covers this arguement well - why else would the amendment process be present if it was not to clarify, change, or otherwise add to the constitution?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Actually it was probably ratified when 2/3 of the states voted in favor of the amendment.

Except that never happened. Why do you think the founders made the tax laws that way on the first place?


Still not following you unless you give some more information. As far as I can read of your sources everything went well, until England forbade paper money in the colonies. This would make paper money good, not bad.

No. The secret to success was that it was interest free. It incured no debt . Its the interest on the loan from the Fed thats killing us. A loan we dont need.


why else would the amendment process be present if it was not to clarify, change, or otherwise add to the constitution?

Is the purpose of the constitution to limit government or give it more privilges and power? Just look at the facts. If you had hired these guys to handle your buissiness and they messed it up like this you would have fired them long ago. They were charged with controlling inflation. Well theve controlled it alright. Your dollar in now worth 4 cents of what it was when they took over. They are the biggest problem facing america today. They should all be hung as traitors.

And most of congress along with them as their partners in crime. According to the constitution this is what should happen.

[Husar]

Gah, you got me reading that site now. Now I know the earth is stationary, and the Jesuits created a heliocentric conspiracy...
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html
It isn't the only thing, but the picture describing how a solar eclipse supposedly works is quite funny. :laugh4:

[JimBob]

Quote:
Actually it was probably ratified when 2/3 of the states voted in favor of the amendment.

Except that never happened.

The only argument I can find that the amendment was never ratified is "They passed versions with different grammar." Honestly, that's bollocks.

If Pennsylvania passed it as "And you will pay taxes. And you will like it." And New Yorks said, "You shall pay taxes; and shall like it." And Georgia passed "Yall gonna pay tax, or yall gonna be in a heap of trouble you better believe me boy." Well then, thats the same thing.

Would you argue that "I am a man." "Yo soy un hombre." and "我 是 男人“ are different.

[CountArach]

Gah, you got me reading that site now. Now I know the earth is stationary, and the Jesuits created a heliocentric conspiracy...
http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

And of course, the US tested their first nuclear weapons at Port Chicago. I'm sure the Jesuits had something to do with that, too...
http://www.reformation.org/port-chicago.html

Naturally, the UN is a plot to create a Catholic Church world domination and a Spanish Inquisition in the US (sorry, I mean Cabotia)...
http://www.reformation.org/united-nations.html

Please, by all means do! Reformation.org was extremely entertaining!
People actually believe that :no:

[Tribesman]

The only argument I can find that the amendment was never ratified is "They passed versions with different grammar." Honestly, that's bollocks.

Please be more dignified with your responses Jimbob what would this site come to if every one just called Gawains conspiracy theories bollocks .
I believe the proper terms used by the people who make judgements on these theories as they were presented were "without merit" , "legally frivolous" and "baseless"...
though on reflection it does appear that bollocks or bollox might be equally applicable despite the different letters they utilise.


No. The secret to success was that it was interest free. It incured no debt .

Ah an attempt at justification through the history of numismatics , which just happens by some strange flaw of logic to be of the testicular variety too .
Now someone already mentioned the inflationry effects that Spanish(or portugese for that matter)expansion had on base metal markets .
But hey might as well do for one from the Gawain himself....
After the Bank of England pressured the British Parliament to pass a Currency Act making it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money, the colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. ...so the ban was on banks in case they had neither the reserves or credit standing to honour the money they issued right , as issuing the money without a guarantee or ability to honour the value makes the currency subject to inflation .....So you have the option of gold or silver which of course never change invalue , always have the same availability and always are on parity so of course would never have any debt or inflationary issues :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So now Gawain if I had a debt on paper and had the choice of clearing that debt in gold or silver (coinage or bullion) what factors would influence which commodity I chose to pay that debt in ? How much money could I gain or lose be availing of that option(considering of course that the payment was made before they took the measures to eliminate the scam) .

[Redleg]

Except that never happened. Why do you think the founders made the tax laws that way on the first place?

Sorry Gawain that answer is a non answer - records indicate that 2/3 of the states probably ratified the amendment. Saying it was not probably done falls on its face. Tax laws made in the late 1700 were based upon what they knew at the time and the believed conditions of what England was doing to them at the time. However once again the amendment process to add, change, or otherwise modify the constitution was done, so in order to claim that the income tax is unconstitutional the amendment first has to be removed.




Is the purpose of the constitution to limit government or give it more privilges and power? Just look at the facts. If you had hired these guys to handle your buissiness and they messed it up like this you would have fired them long ago. They were charged with controlling inflation. Well theve controlled it alright. Your dollar in now worth 4 cents of what it was when they took over. They are the biggest problem facing america today. They should all be hung as traitors.

And most of congress along with them as their partners in crime. According to the constitution this is what should happen.

The constitution is to define and provide the scope of the government. Again if the amendment process was followed the change is constitutional that is why the process was established in the first place.

The problem Gawian is that the Income Tax follows the constitution - it sounds to me that your arguement is not valid in regards to the income tax and the constitution - arguing that the IRS has violated the constitution in its enforcement of tax laws is a different arguement. The Federal Reserve might or might not be in violation of the constitution - but your mixing arguements and attempting to use the Income Tax as the basis of your arguement. Unfortunately the Income Tax is constitutional.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

records indicate that 2/3 of the states probably ratified the amendment.

Probably doesnt hold up in court


The problem Gawian is that the Income Tax follows the constitution -

I will give you that. It seems to me the two threads have gotten mixed up. You still cant find the law that says Im liable to pay income tax. They simply use legaleeze to make you think you do. This has been told to you for so long few challenge the idea any longer. Ron Paul has been the chairman of the banking commitee for how long? He doesnt know what hes talking about?

Video: 1984 debate between Ron Paul and Charles Partee (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Video_1984_debate_between_Ron_Paul_and_Charles_Partee)

This debate on the Gold Standard features Congressman Ron Paul and Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. From the Mises Institute's Capital Hill Gold Standard Conference, 11-16-1984

Congressman McFadden
on the Federal Reserve Corporation
Remarks in Congress, 1934
AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE (http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html)


On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.
The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has
YET TO BE ACTED ON.


"'My Dear Senator Weeks:

"'Throughout my public life I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of the banking business. This bill puts the Government into the banking business as never before in our history. "'The powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board seen to me highly dangerous especially where there is political control of the Board. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such dominations. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. "'I had hoped to support this bill, but I cannot vote for it cause it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity, to stability in business, and to the general welfare of the people of the United States.
Very Truly Yours,
Henry Cabot Lodge


President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers at the state of his administration:

"You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

[Tribesman]

An astounding exposure !!!!!!
Are you on a bet or something , is it competition to see how many conspiracy theory websites you can find and post ?:inquisitive:


The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has
YET TO BE ACTED ON.
errrrrr...did they find on referral that it was baseless , without merit and legally frivolous (commonly known as bollox )and required no action ?

[Xiahou]

Ron Paul has been the chairman of the banking commitee for how long? He doesnt know what hes talking about?Ron Paul is insane. After reading up on some of his absurd claims- like there being no law requiring you to pay an income tax -I feel quite sure of that conclusion.

The law is Title 26. The section 861 argument is nonsense and has failed in court numerous times.

[The Wizard]

It's not about law, it's if the government has the right to rob you of your money... at least, that's the libertarian point of view. I'm leaning towards agreeing.

[Xiahou]

It's not about law, it's if the government has the right to rob you of your money... at least, that's the libertarian point of view. I'm leaning towards agreeing.
It is about law though- and there is one.

You're talking more about policy, in which case I'd agree. Our current income tax system is horrid and could use serious reform. And generally speaking, less taxes are always better than more.

[Redleg]

Probably doesnt hold up in court


spelling error on my part - properly was the actual word - it seems to have been upheld by the courts as it is.



I will give you that. It seems to me the two threads have gotten mixed up. You still cant find the law that says Im liable to pay income tax. They simply use legaleeze to make you think you do. This has been told to you for so long few challenge the idea any longer. Ron Paul has been the chairman of the banking commitee for how long? He doesnt know what hes talking about?

Video: 1984 debate between Ron Paul and Charles Partee (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Video_1984_debate_between_Ron_Paul_and_Charles_Partee)


I haven't tried to find the law nor will I cite it other then from the constitution, because its alreadly present in the constitution - Congress has the power to tax.

[Geoffrey S]

An astounding exposure !!!!!!
Are you on a bet or something , is it competition to see how many conspiracy theory websites you can find and post ?:inquisitive:
I'm finding it PARTICULARLY entertaining that so many of those sites write in CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis and end almost every sentence WITH NUMEROUS EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!

[macsen rufus]

Wow, reformation.org is HILARIOUS! So much so it MUST be a spoof :clown:


Many people consider the Encyclopedia Britannica the FINAL AUTHORITY on all scientific matters.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Just out of curiosity , how much would the limited amount of gold in existance have to increase in value for it to be used as a basis for setting the value of money in todays economy ?
Is the call for the return to the gold standard more or less bollox than a call for a return to the silver standard would be , or are they both just bollox ?

[The Wizard]

N.B. Kids, we're already basically on a gold standard lite these days. The word economy ain't much different from the gold standard's glory days of before WW1.


It is about law though- and there is one.Strictly speaking, you're right. The question is if that is just or not.

[Xiahou]

N.B. Kids, we're already basically on a gold standard lite these days. The word economy ain't much different from the gold standard's glory days of before WW1.How so? ~:confused:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Note: I loathe the 16th and 17th ammendments to our Constitution and would prefer to see them both repealed as was the 18th. The stretch between 15 and 19 did not reflect our best thinking despite the good intentions of those ammendments.


As to ratification:

Nothing in the original text of article 5 of the Constitution specifies that ratification of an ammendment must be of a document which is perfectly exact in all respects.

Given the "standards" for spelling in the founder's era, it strikes me that the framers would have expected a text that was functionally equivalent.

Again, ratification of the Constitution itself (Article 9) did not specify an exact textual parallel -- though it is clearly phrased to indicate that the Constitution would not apply to any state failing to ratify it.


I suspect, G-man, that if we dig back into that era of non-mechanical writing and inexact spelling and punctuation, that the same logic applied to assert that the 16th ammendment was not properly ratified could be used to assert that many of our states did not ratify the Constitution and should not be part of our Union or even that the document failed ratification in its entirety and that we should immediately revert to the Articles of Confederation.

The "spirit" of the effort clearly holds that the Constituion was openly ratified by 12 of 13 original states and commonwealths and ratification successfully forced upon Rhode Island.

This same suggests that the 16th ammendment was duly promulgated and ratified. That they did so was a gross dereliction of good sense by those ratifying it and has been the springboard by which so much power has been arrogated by the Federal government in defiance of the intent of our founders -- but it was accomplished legally.

How?

Same as always....the text of the first income tax law was made known and it clearly indicated that it would only be a tax on the rich....suckers.

The Libertarian cause is better advanced by arguing ideas rather than by reveling in minutae.

[The Wizard]

How so? ~:confused:Because we have a globalized economy in which Keynesian economics hold little weight and the motor of the world economy follows a monetaristic policy? Milton Friedman and the Austrian School of Economics, taken at their most extreme, advocate a return to the days of the gold standard (in other words: a truly globalized economy) and are vehemently against protectionism and Keynesian policies.

So, yeah, barring the fact that our economic system rests upon fiat more than gold (gold reserves only cover around 30-40%), we're already quite a distance on the gold standard road. The only thing standing in the way are protectionist policies shielding Western economies from others; for instance, the criminal EU tariff walls oppressing and starving farmers in the Third World.

[Xiahou]

How does that add up to a "gold standard lite"?

Friedman had argued for a true floating currency and replacing the fed with a computer that would expand the money supply by 3% annually, because he didn't trust people(the Fed) to do the right thing.

[The Wizard]

It's not about the technicalities of the currency and how much its worth, it's about how the world economy is run. Regardless of the difference between a gold-bound currency and a floating one, the similarities between today's globalized economy and that of the late 19th century are striking.

[Ice]

Probably doesnt hold up in court

Except it does, including the numerous court cases I've showed you.