Is the federal income tax valid?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jafl, Jun 5, 2009.

  1. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Some people claim that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified because some of the states approved versions that had altered wording or punctuation from the version that Congress approved and sent to the states. Is this true? Would these alterations invalidate ratification and thus make the federal income tax illegal?
     
  2. Herbalpagan

    Herbalpagan Well-Known Member

    252
    0
    I actually I just read something about that. According to what I read, and can find, there is no law at all that says you have to file a federal income tax form. Furthermore, the article in the constitution that you mentioned was not done correctly at all and should not be in existence.
    though there are lots of legal reasons as to why we do not have to pay (or I should say file), the IRS is such a big bully that they make their own rules. though many could concievably get away without paying taxes, they will make your life so miserable that you won't be able to afford a lawyer, have any possesions left or just plain give up. There are lots of groups who can document this, try googling something on tax freedom groups. If I find the links I used, I'll pass them on.
     

  3. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    If the 16th Amendment was improperly ratified so that you have no legal obligation to pay income taxes, then you also have no legal right to own guns since the 2nd Amendment was similarly improperly ratified.

    Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Text of the version introduced into the House of Representatives by James Madison (220 years ago today June 8, 1789) and susequently assigned to a committee: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    Text of the version reported by the committee to the House of Representatives: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

    Text of the version that was approved by the House of Representatives and subsequently sent to the U.S. Senate: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    Text of the version approved by the House of Representatives as transcribed into the journal of the U.S. Senate: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    Text of the version that was prepared by the Senate prior to approval of the final version: “A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Text of the final version that was approved by the Senate and returned to the House of Representatives: “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Text of the version approved by the Senate as transcribed into the journal of the House of Representatives and upon approval of the House of Representatives was sent to the states for ratification: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.“

    So the House and Senate did not approve the exact same version of the 2nd Amendment. So how can it be valid?
     
  4. Herbalpagan

    Herbalpagan Well-Known Member

    252
    0
    They were done at different times and in different ways. The second ammendment IS legal, but the 16th is "questionable". Everyone knows the intent behind the second ammendment and it was created with one thing in mind...control of the government. The 16th ammendment was slippedi n and it was created with the idea of government control. Two different things.

    Remember the intent behind the action is important. However, since many congresses have passed since the 16th ammendment was created and no one has done anything,all knowing it was wrong, the only thing to do is 1) try and get it changed 2)shut up and pay our taxes. lol
     
  5. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    When the 2nd Amendment was proposed practically home in America, with the exception of places like the slave cabins on Massa Jefferson’s plantation, had at least one gun.

    It was universally accepted that these guns could be used for hunting, sport (if the owner could afford to spend the ammo and powder) and to preserve life and property against criminal activity.

    It was also universally accepted that the owners of these guns would assemble themselves into a fighting force whenever necessary to repel a foreign invasion or suppress an internal resurrection against legitimate government authority as the British and American People had been doing for centuries.

    It was not assumed then, as it is commonly assumed now in certain quarters, that a right to own guns meant an inherent right to rebel against the government. No government has or can ever recognize such a right and maintain its sovereignty.

    So the 2nd Amendment didn’t recognize any right that was not already universally accepted by society and government. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was simply to give the government the power to regulate the ownership of guns, the well regulated militia, so no one could ever claim a right to be as well-armed as the government is.

    BTW: What was the purpose of the 16th Amendment if not to give Congress the power to tax people’s income?
     
  6. Herbalpagan

    Herbalpagan Well-Known Member

    252
    0
    I completely disagree with you about the Second Ammendment. The country had just gone through a rebelion, they wanted to make sure that NO government, even their own could become so big that it would forget that the governments job is to work FOR the people. That's is also the reason that the military is limited in size to only 1% of the population. These safeguards were designed so that IF it became nessesary, the people could rebel and put the government in it's proper place.
     
  7. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    The rebellion against the government of Great Britain had taken place only because all legal options for redress had been closed. And that rebellion had been concluded for over 8 years before the 2nd Amendment had been ratified.

    So that’s why something like 1/3 of Americans were enslaved with the backing of the government when the 2nd Amendment was ratified?

    And if the 2nd Amendment gives the American People the right to use armed force against the U.S. government, explain the Whiskey Rebellion.

    Where are you getting this from? There is nothing in the Constitution to limit the size of the U.S. military.

    You’re going to rebel against a government that has tanks, jet fighters, B-52 bombers, missiles and atomic warheads? Lots a luck.
     
  8. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    Wasn't the US operating under the auspices of the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation from 1776(7?) to 1791? So, without actually going over the AoC to see how the replacement Constitution was to be properly ratified, it might be apples & oranges comparing the ratifications of the 2nd vs. the 16th... idk
    I DO like the fact that the 2nd Article (the only one I know) reads:

    "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

    Wasn't the Bill of Rights originally made up of the Bill itself, which included the Preamble, and the TWELVE articles contained within the Bill, of which 10 were approved by the States, and two were rejected (the first 2)?

    I think THIS part of the preamble is what Constitutional scholars (of which I am NOT one ;) ) argue about (& until recently it's validity)
    & what Herbalpagan is refering to.

    http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor001.html

    "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the CONSTITUTION expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."


    articles I-XII:

    http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor001.html

    http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor002.html


    Articles of Confederation:

    Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781


    FedCON:

    http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/ecne2.html
     
  9. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Not entirely. The Continental Congress met for the first time in 1774. The combat portion of the American Revolution began in April 1775. The Continental Congress met again in May 1775. There was no serious consideration of independence before the end of 1775. The resolution for independence was introduced into the Continental Congress in June 1776. The Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft the Articles of Confederation before the vote on independence was taken. Drafting the Articles took a year or so. And since ratification by every state was necessary for the Articles to take effect ratification did not happen until 1781. The last major battle of the Revolutionary War also happened in 1781 but the peace treaty that ended the war was not ratified until 1784. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified by the necessary 9 states in 1788 and became operative in 1789 with the election of the first Congress and first President.

    But we are not comparing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. We are comparing two amendments to the Constitution and you cannot legitimately hold these two amendments to different standards simply to support your rhetoric and pet beliefs.

    By ratifying the Constitution the states gave legal sanction to the suspension of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution needed to be ratified only by 9 of the 13 states to take effect for the states that had ratified it. Amendments to the Articles of Confederation needed to be ratified by every state, but eventually every state did ratify the Constitution as the replacement for the Articles.

    Madison had originally wanted to add the Bill of Rights to the original Constitution document by inserting the Bill within the text of the existing document. Madison’s Bill of Rights became 12 separate proposed amendments through parliamentary procedure.

    But did any of the state ratifying conventions express any definite ideas as to what they wanted a bill of rights to include? I know for a fact that at least some of the things that are in the federal Bill of Rights were not part of some of the state constitutions at the time- namely freedom of religion. It is entirely possible that the federal Bill of Rights has provisions that the states had not expressly asked for.
     
  10. Practical Madman

    Practical Madman Member

    8
    0
    The important amendment is the 14th

    I have done a lot of research into this, and the important amendment is the 14th. We were all taught in school that the 14th freed the slaves, but in fact it made slaves of ALL OF US. Before the 14th we were nationals of the state we were born in. There was no such thing as a "citizen". The 14th made us all "dual citizens" of our home state and the USA, and it made us liable for the debts of the USA. How can you be made liable for a debt you did not sign?

    For more info check out this:
    Team Law

    We are still under martial law from the Civil War. The war was never formally ended and martial law was never lifted. The congress today operates under the Emergency War Powers Act, and their first order of business every year is to renew it. In the war powers act, WE (you and I) ARE THE ENEMY!!!!

    The USA ceased to exist in 1783 and it was incorporated as the USA, Inc. InC 1913 the Federal Reserve was created (a private corporation- owned by the bankers, not the "citizens") and then the 16th amendment (Neither the 14th or the 16th were ever ratified). The 16the amendment is the collateral the USA,Inc. put up for the loans it was receiving from the Fed. Reserve (there is not a banker in the world that will loan you money with out collateral). In 1933 the USA,Inc. went bankrupt and the Fed. Res. took ownership of USA,Inc. and then took all of the gold out of Fort Knox, then Roosevelt took all of the gold out of our pockets (Americans were forced to turn in their gold!). In 1945 at the Breton Woods Agreement, the Fed. Res. SOLD the USA,Inc. to the IMF!!!! So what is in Washington is not your government, it is a FOREIGN OWNED CORPORATION!!!!!

    I do not suggest that anyone not pay their taxes, because the consequences are drastic. Illegal, yes, but none the less lethal and drastic!
    What I do suggest is the everyone do research and LEARN THE TRUTH, then wake everybody else up!!!!!