Is There Valid Law Authorizing Income Taxes?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Ron

Are you sure?
If facts were brought forward that challenged that assumption, would you reconsider?

Watch the film!

I am not watching that film in my office. If you wish to present some information go for it, but posting a video from kooks central doesn't qualify as making an argument.


BTW the ignorance I was referring to was what I assume you were taking from the video that the 16th is Unconstitutional. DUH the SC said the Federal government was forbidden form doing that by the Constitution, that's why it was amended.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by coadie

You are wrong.

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/

U.S. Code

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws made by the United States Congress, which is legislation that passes both the Senate and House of Representatives.


Taxation is

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : TITLE 26. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

All the tax laws are filed here.

My local University has 567 books on US law including taxation.

I take it you never used a great research library.

You can't decieve me Ron.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by coadie

You are wrong.

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/

U.S. Code

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws made by the United States Congress, which is legislation that passes both the Senate and House of Representatives.


Taxation is

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : TITLE 26. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

All the tax laws are filed here.

My local University has 567 books on US law including taxation.

I take it you never used a great research library.

You can't decieve me Ron.

Not trying that at all.

Question is, there is serious doubt that the 16th ammendment passed lawfully.

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Disagree all you want but you guys can't cite portions of the Constitution that have been amended and say the amendment is unconstitutional. that doesn't even make sense. The whole point of being able to amend the Constitution is the ability to change it when needed.

Exactly. Once amended, the amendment *is* the constitution. It can't be unconstitutional...

You can disagree with an amendment and attempt to ratify the constitution to nullify it (see prohibition) but you can't say that an amendment is unconstitutional. Even prohibition was constitutional in that it was a constitutional amendment...

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I am not watching that film in my office. If you wish to present some information go for it, but posting a video from kooks central doesn't qualify as making an argument.


BTW the ignorance I was referring to was what I assume you were taking from the video that the 16th is Unconstitutional. DUH the SC said the Federal government was forbidden form doing that by the Constitution, that's why it was amended.

The video explains it all.
Frankly there is quotes from your founding fathers (who I have great respect for) who warned of just such a thing taking place.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I can see what you are saying if the constitution said that there could be no direct or unapportioned taxes and then a constitutional amendment was made that stated that this limitation would no longer be valid.

THEN they could make the 16th amendment.

You have to state that you are undoing these restrictions.

But the 16th amendment created an ability for a direct & unapportioned tax flying directly in the face of a specific and unamended limitation.

I don't know what makes you think that. You don't have to state you are undoing anything. Look at the twelfth amendment it changes how we elect the President, just by saying this is how we do it. Not by saying the old way is herby abolished.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Ron

The video explains it all.
Frankly there is quotes from your founding fathers (who I have great respect for) who warned of just such a thing taking place.

If you want to argue that their is something wrong with Federal income tax I am with you. But to say we aren't required by law to pay it is another thing altogether.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by nahkoe

Exactly. Once amended, the amendment *is* the constitution. It can't be unconstitutional...

You can disagree with an amendment and attempt to ratify the constitution to nullify it (see prohibition) but you can't say that an amendment is unconstitutional. Even prohibition was constitutional in that it was a constitutional amendment...

If an amendment does something the constitution says cannot be done then it is unconstitutional.

If you want to make said amendment you have to go through the proper channels.

That would be.

1. Make an amendment that states that the limitations stated in the constitution are no longer valid.

2. Then... once the constitutional limitations have been removed via the first statement you can go on with the second statement.

You can't just ignore that the constitution states something and act like it isn't there.

You either obey it or make specific wording to remove it.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If you want to argue that their is something wrong with Federal income tax I am with you. But to say we aren't required by law to pay it is another thing altogether.

Have internet at home?
Watch it there & post your response later!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

If an amendment does something the constitution says cannot be done then it is unconstitutional.

If you want to make said amendment you have to go through the proper channels.

That would be.

1. Make an amendment that states that the limitations stated in the constitution are no longer valid.

2. Then... once the constitutional limitations have been removed via the first statement you can go on with the second statement.

You can't just ignore that the constitution states something and act like it isn't there.

You either obey it or make specific wording to remove it.

Where did this idea come from?