Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution.

[johnwk]

Seriously, do you have a crayon stuck in your brain like Homer Simpson or something? It's what it did. It's what is says.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislature of three-fourths of the several States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

"ARTICLE XVI. The Congress shall have the 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."

Well, I see you quoted the amendment correctly and it certainly does not say:


”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


So, just what was your point in posting the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment?


.

 

[Snowball]

Well, I see you quoted the amendment correctly and it certainly does not say:


”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


So, just what was your point in posting the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment?


.

without apportionment = direct.

 

[Snowball]

Well, yes, the Antichrist and his Whore are made for each other. But We The People should be a righteous people who follow God and reject the Antichrist's Cabal. And I prefer to believe our Founding Fathers were men of faith and were guided by God, rather than to believe they were trapped in the devil's snares. But maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist...



Exactly, which is why all of this really is biblical in nature. This really is, as Q put it, GOOD AND EVIL. So, all the "technicalities" of how the 16th Amendment was or was not passed are not interesting to me. The only thing that interests me is THE REAL.

Judgment Day is coming.

Many are going to be caught up short, especially the ones who insist on laughing at their imminent Doom...

Some of them were men of faith, and most felt guided by God (as they understood that) - in the Freemasonic manner... but that is heresy, because only the Church was instituted by Christ Himself with the power from the Holy Spirit to bind and loose, and with His Vicar, the Bishop of Rome, who coronates Kings and Emperors in sacramental rites... this is what was done, and it is what they sought to usurp. It is what preserved righteousness, and the Illuminati, Jews and Masons overthrew it in the American and French revolutions. The door was open to Satan, and He pushed it open gradually... until it is wide open as the road to perdition that is Man deciding for himself what is Right and what is Wrong - the very Original Sin that cursed us all.

 

[johnwk]

without apportionment = direct.

Correct. So?

 

[Snowball]

Correct. So?

ergo, it has the power to collect ( direct = without apportionment ) taxes on incomes from ( whatever source derived = earned ).

that is all. If you can't understand that, I refuse to speak to you any further.

 

[johnwk]

ergo, it has the power to collect ( direct = without apportionment ) taxes on incomes from ( whatever source derived = earned ).

that is all. If you can't understand that, I refuse to speak to you any further.

I see you are back to applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to the meaning of our Constitution:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”


But, however hard you try, the words in the Sixteenth Amendment remain the same and do not say:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It would falsify the claim that it was ratified in Feb. 1913

Nope. By the end of February 1913 39 states (excluding Ohio) had ratified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Maybe you can help me out on the other thread of discussion -- what was the great national crisis affecting the main-street American in 1911-1913, for which he was raising a nationwide grassroots outcry for a direct, unapportioned, national income tax? I mean, there was a 75% super-majority of Americans who wanted the 16th Amendment to be passed, right?

Right?

Nope. First of all, a tax on pay-for-work has never been held to be a direct tax. Second, the only time a federal income tax has been held to be a direct tax was the 1895 Pollock case, but even there the Court limited its holding to investment income (e.g., dividends and interest) and noted that a tax on pay-for-work was constitutional.

The outcry for an amendment was to overturn Pollock and subject investment income to the income tax. Since constitutional amendments aren't put to a popular vote, I have no idea whether a super majority of Americans wanted the amendment, but more than a super majority of state legislatures did.

President Taft put it this way in his message to Congress:

The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that Government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have. It might be indispensable to the nation's life in great crises. Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent. I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population...

It is said the difficulty and delay in securing the approval of three-fourths of the States will destroy all chance of adopting the amendment. Of course, no one can speak with certainty upon this point, but I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of vesting the National Government with power to levy an income tax, and that they will secure the adoption of the amendment in the States, if proposed to them.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Nor does it say "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived (other than wages), without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

.........:

Why are taking all this time to post this stuff?

 

[johnwk]

Harmonizing the 16th Amendment and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

Nor does it say "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived (other than wages), without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Now, let us keep in mind that on June 17th, 1909, Senator Brown offered the following Joint Resolution (S. J. R. 39) to amend the Constitution relative to TAXES ON INCOMES:

”Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ___ SENATE, June 17, 1909, Page 3377


But the wording "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment", etc., never made it into the final version of the Sixteenth Amendment, nor is there any wording in the Constitution repealing the command that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”

With the above in mind it is important to note that under the rules which govern constitutional construction, in situations where there appears to be constitutional provisions that are inconsistent with each other, as is the current case in which there is no repeal of the constitutional requirement that "direct" taxes must be apportioned, while Congress is granted power to lay and collect a taxes on incomes without apportionment, the two provisions must be interpreted to harmonize them in such a manner that effect should be given to each.

In the instant case, harmonizing is to be found in a tax on incomes laid by Congress so long as it does not take the form of a direct tax, which then would require an apportionment.

And how do we carry out the legislative intent of the Sixteenth Amendment and have those with un-earned income contribute a share to the funding of our federal government while likewise preserving the rule that any direct tax must be apportioned?

One way is by laying and collecting a tax on incomes realized under a privilege of doing business as an artificial entity created by government ___ a corporation with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals’ ___ and calculating the tax from profits and gains realized under the privilege.

Taxing “incomes” in this manner, those which are realized under a privilege granted by government and calculated from profits and or gains therefrom, makes the tax indirect and not requiring an apportionment, and thus satisfies the Sixteenth Amendment’s granted power to tax “incomes” without apportionment, while also preserving the constitutional protection requiring any “direct” tax must be apportioned.

JWK

 

[ClaytonB]

Nope. By the end of February 1913 39 states (excluding Ohio) had ratified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'm less interested in that point, just clarifying the point that johnwk is trying to make -- the manner in which the 16th Amendment was passed is clearly aberrant... kind of like a recent election we had was clearly aberrant....

Nope. First of all, a tax on pay-for-work has never been held to be a direct tax.

Well, first of all, that has nothing to do with the bolded part -- 75% super-majority of the States is absolutely required to pass a constitutional amendment... the Cabal hasn't figured out how to change that one, yet.

As for the rest of your counter-tax-protestor arguments circus, I'll decline a reprise of that crap-show. You're out to lunch in respect to the clear meaning of the Constitution, which was written for Everyman to understand, it was not some kind of Holy Scrip bequeathed from the Founders to SCOTUS so that SCOTUS may tell us their Papal Pronouncements upon its true meaning.

I'll not be replying so enjoy arguing with the wind!

The outcry for an amendment was to overturn Pollock

75% of Americans were lit on fire to overturn a Supreme Court case finding that a direct tax is unconstitutional unless apportioned?? Prove it! There should be years' worth of daily top-fold stories in every major newspaper throughout the country as Americans were assembling with torches and pitchforks, clamoring for the Federal government to impose a nation-wide income tax on them! Remember, only something like 35% of Americans do not actively oppose Antifa/BLM... and we call that a "major political movement"... Imagine if Antifa/BLM had more than twice the popular support that they do... you wouldn't be able to walk 3 feet down a public sidewalk without being bombarded by posters, pamphleteers, etc. Are you suggesting that, between 1911 and 1913, this is what was happening in America as ordinary Americans clamored and cried out in desperation to have a nation-wide, direct income tax imposed by the Federal government???

constitutional amendments aren't put to a popular vote,

Of course, but the States themselves are bound by their own popular constituency. A State governor is not going to move to support something that will get them voted out of office. Even more so for its State congressional members. So, there was surely a major political upwelling of popular support for this all-important 16th-Amendment to resolve the desperate political crisis that was destroying the lives of main-street Americans! It must have been headline news for years, people must have been turning half the nation upside-down.

I have no idea whether a super majority of Americans wanted the amendment, but more than a super majority of state legislatures did.

Hmm, yes, and I wonder what usually causes such disconnects between popular support and support among elected representatives? It couldn't possibly be bribery... that's unthinkable!

The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that Government had.

Wow, what a pile of bullshit. I thought Slick Willy was the king of bullshit but boy was I wrong, Taft makes old Dress-Stain Clinton look like an amateur!

Translation: "Boo hoo hoo! The SCOTUS -- who is the referee of what the Constitution means and by which we plan to bind our children to the payment of income taxes -- made a ruling and me and my political buddies don't like it because we 'generally supposed' among ourselves that we had pulled the wool over the eyes of the US public with our previous court cases in SCOTUS and the blatantly anti-constitutional verdicts we were able to secure in those cases! BOO HOO HOO!!"

It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have.

It is undoubtedly a power that the Framers explicitly denied to the Federal government; the Hamiltonian central-bankers spent more than a century fishing for a way to circumvent it, which goes to demonstrate just how seriously that prohibition was taken. Sadly, the Hamiltonians eventually succeeded and they got their counterfeit banking empire and we are living in the aftermath of that. Hundreds of millions dead, worldwide. Truly incalculable economic devastation. Human development stunted. Spiritual and cultural progress aborted. Apocalypse snatched from the jaws of Paradise. Yay, central banking!

It might be indispensable to the nation's life in great crises.

The Statist talking points never change, do they?

Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent.

Translation: "My banker buddies have assured me they will open up their counterfeiting operation the day I ensure that the power to impose a direct, unapportioned tax (taxation without representation) is secured. Otherwise, there is no other way to be completely certain the bonds they purchase from the treasury with counterfeit money will be repaid and the banksters do not tolerate delinquency on repayment of 'loans' drawn on their funny-money that they print out of thin-air."

Thanks for destroying the vast majority of my own economic potential, and completely destroying the economic future of my children, Taft. Hope you're proud of yourself!

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No one is reading all these blah blah blah posts. Tufts is making a mockery of the site and us while laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I'm less interested in that point, just clarifying the point that johnwk is trying to make -- the manner in which the 16th Amendment was passed is clearly aberrant...

In what way? Did the shape-shifting Illuminati cast a spell over the ratifying legislatures?

It is undoubtedly a power that the Framers explicitly denied to the Federal government

Read the Constitution, numbnut. The only thing it says Congress can't tax is exports.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

No one is reading all these blah blah blah posts.

Apparently you are.

 

[ClaytonB]

In what way? Did the shape-shifting Illuminati cast a spell over the ratifying legislatures?

More believable than Sniffy-Joe "You Ain't Black" Biden getting more black votes than Obama...

Read the Constitution, numbnut. The only thing it says Congress can't tax is exports.

Ol' "Brickhead" Tufts strikes again!

"No ... direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the ... Enumeration herein before directed to be taken [in Art. 1 Sec 2]"

Read it: "NO ... DIRECT TAX"

The "unless" is an exception that permits a direct tax to be laid ONLY in proportion to the number of representatives. Hence, all DIRECT and UNAPPORTIONED taxes were prohibited by the Constitution, no matter what ol' Howie "Slicker-than-Slick" Taft had to say about the matter!

 

[ClaytonB]

No one is reading all these blah blah blah posts. Tufts is making a mockery of the site and us while laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't agree -- us old diehards need to occasionally stoop down and do a few rounds in the ring with the paid-propagandists for the benefit of new folks who are just onboarding to the movement. Freshly-minted 19-year-old LPMC members with a summer at Mises U under their belt will have been exposed to a broad palette of Leftist talking-points, but there is a veritable ocean of such talking-points, and so a big part of equipping them to take on the Left is just showing them the ropes, getting out there and showing them how to sail over stormy seas...

 

[Snowball]

Sixteenth Amendment: "You may eat any fruit in the orchard".

"johnwk": "But it doesn't say you may eat apples!".

Nothing more to say.

 

[johnwk]

Sixteenth Amendment: "You may eat any fruit in the orchard".

"johnwk": "But it doesn't say you may eat apples!".

Nothing more to say.

And you eat the lies which you have been feed, and then regurgitate those lies.

 

[Snowball]

And you eat the lies which you have been feed, and then regurgitate those lies.

No lies from me here.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

"No ... direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the ... Enumeration herein before directed to be taken [in Art. 1 Sec 2]"

Read it: "NO ... DIRECT TAX"

The "unless" is an exception that permits a direct tax to be laid ONLY in proportion to the number of representatives. Hence, all DIRECT and UNAPPORTIONED taxes were prohibited by the Constitution, no matter what ol' Howie "Slicker-than-Slick" Taft had to say about the matter!

You really are terminally ignorant, with a gob of stupidity to boot. No, the Constitution doesn't prohibit unapportioned taxes. Imposts, excises, and duties don't have to be apportioned; they only have to be geographically uniform. In addition, the 16th Amendment makes it clear to all but the illiterate and terminally dense that a tax on income doesn't have to be apportioned regardless of where the income comes from.

Only direct taxes (other than a tax on income, if you still adhere to the moronic view that an income tax is a direct tax) have to be apportioned.