How President Paul Could End the Income Tax Without a Constitutional Amendment

[Truth-Bringer]

How could President Ron Paul end the Income Tax without a Constitutional Amendment?

By simply pardoning everyone convicted of income tax evasion and promising to do the same for everyone else who might be indicted in the future under his administration. At that point, all fear would disappear and the Income Tax would be de facto repealed.

The Income Tax is a complete fraud and hoax anyway, and the Founders never intended to allow Constitutional Amendments to deprive people of unalienable rights (read as un-a-lien-able, not subject to government lien - can the IRS put a lien on your property? - nuff said).

 

[StopTheNWO]

Qft

 

[Dzlpower]

i think he will first try going through congress, he doesn't want to abuse the Presidents power, but if all else fails he could ultimately do that

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

By simply pardoning everyone convicted of income tax evasion and promising to do the same for everyone else who might be indicted in the future under his administration. At that point, all fear would disappear and the Income Tax would be de facto repealed.

Very interesting thought!

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

I'm fairly sure he could use his executive authority to instruct the IRS to not violate the 4th, 5th, or other Amendments in the process of investigating or collecting unpaid taxes. That would effectively cripple it, he could simply point to the Bill of Rights, and he wouldn't have to deal with being accused of abusing his pardoning power.

 

[LukeNM]

Also, he could just not confirm the appointment of the IRS Chief and not sign off on the departments funding (put the building up for sale). And, consequently we could just stop filing and reporting.

 

[therealjjj77]

It would be unconstitutional for him to continue to allow the IRS to tax citizens. They would still be able to tax corporations, which is constitutional. I would just love to see wall street fall in on itself and let the small businesses get the economy flourishing again. The only thing you would have to do is get rid of the inflation tax, get rid of the tax on citizens, and balance the budget.

 

[Gilby]

The income tax applies to those who are using federal property or privileges. It does not apply to someone in the private sector that is using non-federal property. If he made this clear, then it would end up eliminating the income tax for most of us, with no change in laws by the congress. Only those that use federal property in their business would be taxed.

There are a lot of things that can be undone with the presidential power, because to apply the law correctly would mean that he can change a lot when it is in the direction of shrinking government.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Here's another way we can end the income tax without a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[brandon]

He could only pardon people if they were prosecuted while he was POTUS. The IRS could simply wait until his term was up, and then start prosecuting everyone that didn't pay up.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

He could only pardon people if they were prosecuted while he was POTUS. The IRS could simply wait until his term was up, and then start prosecuting everyone that didn't pay up.

True. He would have to take other actions, as LukeNM suggested:

he could just not confirm the appointment of the IRS Chief and not sign off on the departments funding

But with no income tax revenue coming in - most of the IRS agents would obviously quit and start looking for other jobs.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Here's another way we could peacefully end the income tax - by becoming an army of nullifiers:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=110352

 

[Zippyjuan]

Interesting to see how people are suggesting that Mr. Paul- who pledges to do everything according to the Constitution- could go around it in order to eleminate income taxes. If he were president, the only way he could do it himself would be to suspend the Constitution- the very document he upholds so dearly.

Congress has the right to asses taxes.
Article One- Section Eight:

Section 8


Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And then you have the Sixteenth Amendment which specifically authorized income taxes starting in 1913:

Amendment XVI: Income tax.


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.

http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080

The President is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. From Article 5:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

He could not by himself ignore or modify the Constitution.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Interesting to see how people are suggesting that Mr. Paul- who pledges to do everything according to the Constitution- could go around it in order to eleminate income taxes.

Well, well, well, do we have ourselves a new troll on the forum?...

What he pledges to do is restore the original intent of the Constitution in regards to the defense of unalienable rights.

If he were president, the only way he could do it himself would be to suspend the Constitution- the very document he upholds so dearly.

Not so. The Constitution was already betrayed by those allegedly passing amendments to try and alter the original intent. Some things should have been abolished - such as slavery - which involved a deprivation of rights. But the Constitution was never intended to deprive anyone of any rights, if they are acting peacefully, honestly, and voluntarily.

And then you have the Sixteenth Amendment which specifically authorized income taxes starting in 1913:

Which was passed in direct opposition to the original intent of the Constitution - and passed by corrupt legislators.

And there are serious questions as to if it was even properly ratified.

 

[rmholla]

I don't want to see the IRS go away exactly. What I would like to see is them focus completely on businesses. I think every corp. trading on the stock exchange should have an audit every 5 years. No more Enron bullshit. Let the IRS bulldogs lose to do forensic audits on every business and I think the whole notion of "cooked books" will go away quickly--especially if the CEO and members of the board are held accountable for any errors.

-

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Interesting to see how people are suggesting that Mr. Paul- who pledges to do everything according to the Constitution- could go around it in order to eleminate income taxes. If he were president, the only way he could do it himself would be to suspend the Constitution- the very document he upholds so dearly.

Congress has the right to asses taxes.
Article One- Section Eight:


And then you have the Sixteenth Amendment which specifically authorized income taxes starting in 1913:


http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080

The President is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. From Article 5:


He could not by himself ignore or modify the Constitution.

Repealing an Amendment is NOT unconstitutional.

Especially when said amendment was to allow something which was previously un-constitutional, ie. an indirect non-apportioned tax.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I don't want to see the IRS go away exactly. What I would like to see is them focus completely on businesses. I think every corp. trading on the stock exchange should have an audit every 5 years. No more Enron bullshit. Let the IRS bulldogs lose to do forensic audits on every business and I think the whole notion of "cooked books" will go away quickly--especially if the CEO and members of the board are held accountable for any errors.
-

I agree that we should hold corporations more accountable. However, if you want to clean up corporate crime, you must clean up the corruption in Washington. Which is why we need an honest, reliable President like Ron Paul.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Repealing an Amendment is NOT unconstitutional.

Especially when said amendment was to allow something which was previously un-constitutional, ie. an indirect non-apportioned tax.

I agree that an amendment can be repealed. It happened with Prohibition. I am only saying that the President cannot do it by himself. The Sixteenth Amendment grants Congress the authorization to institute and collect income taxes- but it does not require them to do so. If they wanted to pass a law which said that they would no longer collect such taxes and the President signed it, then we could eliminate income taxes without changing the Constitution.

The amendment was passed according to Constitutionally established proceedures and has not been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the 95 years since then.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The amendment was passed according to Constitutionally established proceedures and has not been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the 95 years since then.

That's a deception and one of the primary lies of the IRS:


"Ever since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified (February 3, 1913) giving Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes on incomes" there have been citizens arguing that it was not properly ratified and income taxes are illegal. Unfortunately, some citizens continue to raise such arguments in spite of the fact that they have no basis in law and the courts have repeatedly rejected their arguments as frivolous".

Truth - In point of fact, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Mr. Bill Benson and Mr. M.J. "Red" Beckman traveled to every state that was a part of the Union back in 1913, and researched the voting records and other pertinent data from each of the state legislature's historical archives. Their research is contained within a two-volume set entitled, "The Law That Never Was". The inescapable conclusion of their research is that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. ["The Law That Never Was" can be found at www.thelawthatneverwas.com ] Further, despite the IRS lies stated above, no US court has ever determined that the 16th Amendment was, in reality, properly ratified. What the courts have said is that because the [then] US Secretary of State, Philander Knox, "certified" that the Amendment was properly ratified, the courts of the United States must consider it properly ratified. The federal courts have stated that whether or not the Amendment was, in reality, properly ratified is a "political question".


Link

 

[Hancock1776]

He could only pardon people if they were prosecuted while he was POTUS. The IRS could simply wait until his term was up, and then start prosecuting everyone that didn't pay up.

Four years is a long time. Do you think that after everyone got used to not having income taxes they'd feel comfortable having them again?