Is There Valid Law Authorizing Income Taxes?

[Praxeas]

Supposedly it was to be temporary only.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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.

One of the things that make me think that is that I am a board member for a non profit organization and I know that you have to go through specific channels to do things.

If you want to do something that flies in the face of your by laws then you have to first amend that portion of the by law and then you make the motion to do things differently.

You don't just ignore the by law and do what you want to. If you don't want that limitation to be there any longer you have to disable it first... and then move on with the new motions.

This is parlimentary procedure 101.

[nahkoe]

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 quite follow?

[nahkoe]

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 Make an amendment that states that the limitations stated in the constitution are no longer valid.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

Provide me with documentation to support this claim.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

One of the things that make me think that is that I am a board member for a non profit organization and I know that you have to go through specific channels to do things.

If you want to do something that flies in the face of your by laws then you have to first amend that portion of the by law and then you make the motion to do things differently.

You don't just ignore the by law and do what you want to. If you don't want that limitation to be there any longer you have to disable it first... and then move on with the new motions.

We of course have to keep minutes of meetings and abide by rulings.

I was never answered when Obama had the Chairman of GM fired without a notice of meeting and a board meeting and vote to fire him.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

One of the things that make me think that is that I am a board member for a non profit organization and I know that you have to go through specific channels to do things.

If you want to do something that flies in the face of your by laws then you have to first amend that portion of the by law and then you make the motion to do things differently.

You don't just ignore the by law and do what you want to. If you don't want that limitation to be there any longer you have to disable it first... and then move on with the new motions.

Well then lets toss the 12th and tell BO he is not the President because they didn't change the Constitution like you think they should. A Constitutional Amendment changes the Constitution. The 12th did it for elections of Presidents and the 13th did it with slavery.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

One of the things that make me think that is that I am a board member for a non profit organization and I know that you have to go through specific channels to do things.

If you want to do something that flies in the face of your by laws then you have to first amend that portion of the by law and then you make the motion to do things differently.

You don't just ignore the by law and do what you want to. If you don't want that limitation to be there any longer you have to disable it first... and then move on with the new motions.

This is parlimentary procedure 101.

so the same as America.

You create a corporate charter
Articles of incorporation
Rules, laws and bylaws
Formal meetings using parliamentary procedures.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Well then lets toss the 12th and tell BO he is not the President because they didn't change the Constitution like you think they should. A Constitutional Amendment changes the Constitution. The 12th did it for elections of Presidents and the 13th did it with slavery.

Did either of the ammendment prohibit something that was previously allowed?
No.

The 12th clarified & the 13th bared a practiced in which the Constitution previously did not state except to further state that "all men are free!"

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Ron

Did either of the ammendment prohibit something that was previously allowed?
No.

The 12th clarified & the 13th bared a practiced in which the Constitution previously did not state except to further state that "all men are free!"

The 12th completely changed the way we elect presidents, it didn't clarify. And the 13th took property that was recognized in the Constitution without just compensation.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

The 12th completely changed the way we elect presidents, it didn't clarify. And the 13th took property that was recognized in the Constitution without just compensation.

Property?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

People are not property!