UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Americans love thier government


11/26/07 4:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Nov-07
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 261
 
By paying Income tax that there is no law for. Is this because you love your government or because you guys simply make to much money?
11/27/07 11:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ViewType
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Nov-07
Member Since: 09/06/2002
Posts: 2287
No, there is a law for it. I've seen it.
11/27/07 4:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Nov-07
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 264
Well can you tell me where you have seen it? The supreme court ruled against it(making people pay income tax because no law exists) 8 times. Source: America: from freedom to fascism written by the the late great Aaron Russo.
11/27/07 6:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
springfield
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Nov-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1765
Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1913.


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.

11/27/07 11:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ViewType
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Nov-07
Member Since: 09/06/2002
Posts: 2288
"Well can you tell me where you have seen it?" Yes, I can. Start with 26 U.S.C. s. 1 and keep reading. "The supreme court ruled against it(making people pay income tax because no law exists) 8 times." I guarantee you're just quoting what some other person told you and you don't have any idea wtf you're talking about.
11/28/07 7:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Nov-07 08:11 AM
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 266
^^^^Thank you.
11/28/07 8:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Nov-07
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 267
11/28/07 8:43 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Nov-07
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 268
Yes, in a way I don't know wtf I am talking about, however this is very shocking. I guess what I was trying to say that it was unconstitutional. America: Freedom to Fascism, deals with this issue. Youtube and Google carry it for free so there is no excuses. Description of movie I found. In Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism, Presidential candidate and current US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), FBI agents, and even the IRS admit that there is no law enforcing mandatory filing of income taxes for American wage-earners. The film will be shown on Thursday, April 12, 7PM at the Strand Theatre in downtown Delaware by the Libertarian Party of Delaware County. Russo, who has won an Oscar, Emmy, and Tony over the last 30 years working with actors like Dustin Hoffman, Eddie Murphy, and Bette Midler, presents interviews with an impressive range of government officials, IRS special agents , FBI officers, politicians, and tax attorneys who have researched and subsequently campaigned against the Federal Reserve Act and thus reveals why the IRS is an illegal foundation. According to the movie, the income tax does not meet either criteria of Constitutionally legal taxation in America, that is direct apportioned tax or indirect uniform tax. The IRS claims that the 16th Amendment allowed for a third form of taxation, however, the Supreme Court ruling on the amendment states that it allows for no new forms of taxation. More Supreme Court cases in the same period confirm the same conclusion. The 16th Amendment did not allow the Federal Government to levy a new tax, thus there is no Constitutional basis for the income tax. "I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't seen the movie," remarks LP Del Chair Robert Butler. "Even the Commissioner of the IRS can't point to a law that authorizes the income tax for individual workers."
11/28/07 9:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Big Cracker
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Nov-07
Member Since: 06/04/2004
Posts: 172
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted. The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913. Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states. In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it! In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way. Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong. If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void. The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification. Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33. Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment. When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20. These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
11/28/07 9:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Big Cracker
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Nov-07
Member Since: 06/04/2004
Posts: 173
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
11/28/07 9:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Big Cracker
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Nov-07
Member Since: 06/04/2004
Posts: 174
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
11/28/07 11:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Nov-07
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 270
Holy shit Big Cracker!!! Thank you for that information. That explanation should clear things up.
11/29/07 2:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ViewType
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Nov-07
Member Since: 09/06/2002
Posts: 2289
"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void. "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 ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) 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 text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders. "Thomas 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. "Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas'. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary' decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox' decision is now beyond review."
11/29/07 2:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ViewType
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Nov-07
Member Since: 09/06/2002
Posts: 2290
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986)
11/29/07 2:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ViewType
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Nov-07
Member Since: 09/06/2002
Posts: 2291
Or just go here and get a good start on edumacating yerseff: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
11/30/07 8:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Nov-07
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 271
I do need more education on this subject as there is alot of contradictory information. All I know is that its odd that a person who lives in a great country like America - where the people employ the government - won't question his government(employees) in light of obvious contradictory information. Strange. Let me guess - View point works for the IRS.
11/30/07 8:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shadowboxchamp
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Nov-07
Member Since: 02/10/2005
Posts: 273
Could you guys imagine what the founding fathers would do if they heard ViewType speak like that. I think they would at least subject him to a crippling heelhook :)

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.