# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Was the 16th Amendment Ratified?

## Fox McCloud

Ok, I've seen multiple arguments from both side about "yes it was ratified" and "no it was not"....what (I think) we both agree on is that there is no law requiring you to pay the income tax.

Therefore, I beg of you, my fellow Paulites, to go forth and prove/disprove this claim.

Also, for the record, just because the Supreme Court says it was ratified will not make me believe that it was....the Supreme Court (Though not talked about as much as Congress and the President) is just about as freaked up as the rest of our government.

----------


## colecrowe

Yes. obviously. Is it horrible? Yes, obviously.

----------


## Joe3113

"If you...examined [The 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox 2003.

----------


## colecrowe

"There is no law"

Whatever. The constitution says congress can levy taxes in the way the 16th Amendment lays out. So they do. Constitutionally.

It went against everything the Constitution was originally for and it is horrible and anti freedom. But just because a comma was out of place does not mean it wasn't ratified legally.

Just change it. Give up the ridiculous conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up.

----------


## Truth-Bringer

> Also, for the record, just because the Supreme Court says it was ratified will not make me believe that it was....the Supreme Court (Though not talked about as much as Congress and the President) is just about as freaked up as the rest of our government.


Actually, what the courts have said is that since the Secretary of State signed it, as far as they're concerned, that means it's ratified.  What they refuse to look at though is the evidence leading up to that.  They refuse to ask "did the Secretary of State fraudulently ratify it?"

See my debate on that issue here.

----------


## GoldStan

> "There is no law"
> 
> 
> Just change it. Give up the ridiculous conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up.


Gotta be careful. That sort of rational talk doesn't seem to go over well here.

Don't you know that EVERYTHING wrong with the lives 80% of the posters here is caused by a mound of conspiracies the size of Mt. Everest?

----------


## IPSecure

Since Congress is the institution that 'creates' laws, they should have a record of such.

The congressional research committee has no such record.
(Freedom to Fascism)

Would not the president also have to sign into law?

----------


## Truth-Bringer

> Just change it. Give up the ridiculous conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up.


Well there is plenty of evidence to back it up.  Those questions were also asked by the We The People Foundation.  The government refuses to answer the questions and the courts won't answer them either.  If there's no evidence as you claim, why is the government unwilling or afraid to answer very simple, straight-forward questions?

But I agree that no one should go into court and challenge the tax on the basis of ratification of the 16th amendment.  That is a losing issue.

----------


## Redcard

> Since Congress is the institution that 'creates' laws, they should have a record of such.
> 
> The congressional research committee has no such record.
> (Freedom to Fascism)
> 
> Would not the president also have to sign into law?


The national Archives has a Congressional Record that implements the law.

I called and asked.  They said they get about 5000 or so calls a year asking for it.  A few people scream "No you don't" after, but they've got it.

----------


## Cleaner44

> Ok, I've seen multiple arguments from both side about "yes it was ratified" and "no it was not"....what (I think) we both agree on is that there is no law requiring you to pay the income tax.
> 
> Therefore, I beg of you, my fellow Paulites, to go forth and prove/disprove this claim.
> 
> Also, for the record, just because the Supreme Court says it was ratified will not make me believe that it was....the Supreme Court (Though not talked about as much as Congress and the President) is just about as freaked up as the rest of our government.


Someone researched carefully and wrote a book on this subject. I don't remember the guy's name. He went to each state and examined the original records and found that it was _not_ retified. If I can find the info I will post it.

----------


## Cleaner44

> Someone researched carefully and wrote a book on this subject. I don't remember the guy's name. He went to each state and examined the original records and found that it was _not_ retified. If I can find the info I will post it.


The Law That Never Was: The fraud of the 16th Amendment and personal income tax is a 1985 book by William J. Benson and Martin J. "Red" Beckman which claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution — commonly known as the income tax amendment — was never properly ratified.

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

I have not read the book and can not vouch for its accuracy.

The Premise

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

----------


## FreeTraveler

The only real answer is "It doesn't matter."

By the time we get a Supreme Court that would even consider entertaining the notion, we'll already be far enough along the freedom trail that we'll just repeal it and stop wasting time on it.

<rant>
If we had all the time that was spent on this board arguing things that we realistically can not change, from Dr. Paul's campaign to 9/11, Dr. Paul would already be a shoe-in as President of the United States.

We talk about the horrible "wasted vote" as the horrible crime it is, yet ignore the "wasted hour" that could have been used to convert 2, 3, or 4 undecided voters to Dr. Paul.

We KNOW how persuasive his message is, how Dr. Paul's message "sticks" to people, yet so much time is spent doing everything BUT carrying a laptop house-to-house to show "Hope 2.0" or whatever your favorite approach is.

</rant>

----------


## Truth Warrior

Then I gotta wonder why the IRS continues to call paying the income tax, voluntary.  Perhaps because there is no law requiring it.  If it existed wouldn't it be in the U.S. legal code?

----------


## Kade

> Gotta be careful. That sort of rational talk doesn't seem to go over well here.
> 
> Don't you know that EVERYTHING wrong with the lives 80% of the posters here is caused by a mound of conspiracies the size of Mt. Everest?


+4. Lulz.

----------


## Truth-Bringer

> The national Archives has a Congressional Record that implements the law.
> 
> I called and asked.  They said they get about 5000 or so calls a year asking for it.  A few people scream "No you don't" after, but they've got it.


But what they have is a deception.  It's like the law itself.  Title 26 appears to give them the authority to collect these taxes, but it's a convoluted mess.  And that unnecessary complexity exists for a reason, because they use shifting definitions within the code from page to page to hide the truth.

If you use the Freedom of Information Act to decode your IRS Individual Master file, you will find that you are (surprisingly) a resident of the Virgin Islands, even if you have never even been to the Virgin Islands.  That is part of the deception.

As I posted earlier:  "All RIGHTS come from our Creator: the United States Government can only exercise powers given to it by We The People through the U.S. Constitution; the "income tax" is an INDIRECT TAX; there is NO section of positive law in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 U.S.C.) making a American CITIZEN or a RESIDENT working and living WITHIN A STATE OF THE *UNION, LIABLE to pay the INCOME (indirect/excise/duty) TAX who is not engaged in the functions of a public office."

Consider the following:

From the Handbook for Special Agents, page 9781-51, 334.112
The Individual Master File Section:

"(1) The Individual Master File is a magnetic tape record of all individual income tax filers in Social Security Number sequence, and is maintained at the National Computer Center.

The Individual Master File is designed to accumulate in each taxpayer's account all data pertaining to the income taxes for which the taxpayer is liable.  (Gets tricky when you start chasing down the definitions for exactly who is a "taxpayer" and who is "liable" for what)

The taxpayer information stored in the master computer for each IMF* may be understood only by a careful and tedious process of decoding* by references to the explanations contained in the IRS 6209 Manual, IMF Operations Manual, Law Enforcement Manual, and several other manuals published by the Service for the instruction and guidance of its personnel."
*
This creates a prime facie case against you in court, because the IRS takes these Individual Master Files in against you.*

Prime facie cases must be *REBUTTED.*

The IMF files are a "Rebuttable Presumption" in the law of evidence.

If you do not rebut them, they are said to have "Presumptive Correctness" in any court action against you.

Why is this important?  Because the courts have already ruled on the matter:

*"Government prevails in challenge to individuals appeals hearing in which master file transcripts were considered at hearing instead of tax returns." - Stanifird v. Wilcox et al. 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-1058 June 12, 2001.*

Decode your IMF and you will find the truth.  Listen to the truth that leaks out from a former chief of the IRS's Freedom of Information Act branch:

"The overwhelming majority of taxpayers appear to be perfectly willing to face serious adverse action without bothering to make any significant effort to learn what the agency knows about them or how they came to be in that situation. In fact, even subjects of major criminal investigation seldom bother to make such inquiries, apparently being willing to face trial and risk imprisonment without *writing a simple letter which could produce information which could literally save their freedom*.

 - Marcus Farbenblum, Chief of the Freedom of Information Branch, IRS National Office, from his book, The I.R.S. and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act of 1974, regarding FOIA requests

Now if someone doesn't pay their taxes and is charged with a crime, why is this IRS chief at the FOIA office telling people they "could literally save their freedom" by writing a simple letter requesting information from a Freedom of Information Act?

*Think about it, folks.*  The only possible explanation is that something is indeed hidden in their Individual Master File which would prove they don't owe the tax.

----------


## PatriotG

Make IRS check payable to stockholders of private Fed

IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

Money Laundering

Money as a Tool to Control

----------


## PatriotG

There is nothing in the Master File that will save your freedom. The master file is based on the presumption that you are a taxpayer. Therefore the underlying issue is the determination of whether you are a taxpayer who is liable to pay specific taxes, and that is specifically outlined in Subchapter N, and Subchapter A. The W4 asks you that very question.

The validity of the 16th Amendment does not clarify anything. There is substantial evidence that it was not, and refusal by the court and congress to examine the issue makes a case for the fraud.

In one instance the court states that the income tax was un-constitutional, Farmers v. Pollack. So along comes the 16th Amendment, which the court states gave congress no new power to tax, Stanton v. Baltic. It is all very convoluted but here is a good explanation: http://www.jeffdickstein.com/

However, the most recent rumblings on the issue come from another case that was resolved in June of 2006, U.S. vs.. Robert Lawrence. Lawrence's defense was that the form 1040 was an illegal form in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act - 44 U.S.C. 3500 - 3520. The DOJ asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice after receiving the defendants strategy.

That is the most poignant argument because it shows that not only does the government know that it is forcing a fraud, but every corporation that hands you those W4 forms is complicit in the fraud. The form must be properly labeled with the Office of Management and Budget's control numbers. The 1040 distributed by the IRS is a replica of the 1040 belonging to the Financial Management Service, the actual arm of the Treasury duly authorized to collect money owed to the U.S. government. The IRS form does not have a proper OMB control number, the FMS form does.

Underlying that is also the misconception that at any point the congress, or the people, had the power to enact a direct tax without repealing the requirement of apportionment from the Constitution. If they did not repeal the direct apportioned requirement then the income tax is an excise in fact, so: "A man is free to lay hand upon his own property. To acquire and possess property is a right, not a privilege ... The right to acquire and possess property cannot alone be made the subject of an excise.... nor, generally speaking, can an excise be laid upon the mere right to possess the fruits thereof, as that right is the chief attribute of ownership." -- Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos

----------


## Matt Collins

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

----------


## GoldStan

Bigger URL's mean Truthier Content?

----------


## seapilot

The 16th amendment or personal income tax is in direct conflict with the 13th amendment. Look up the legal definiton of "involuntary servitude".

----------


## fedup100

no!

----------


## whatever

Actually, the 16th Amendment is published in Volume 37 of the Statutes at Large on pg. 1785 in Part 2, "PRIVATE ACTS AND RESOLUTIONS", meaning that it is private or special law, not public law. Meaning it's application is limited to those subject to the special law of the IRC.....

----------


## Zippyjuan

The Constitution specifies that an amendment must be aproved by three fourths of the states.  The Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by 42 states or 84% which is certainly more than 75%.

----------

