  |
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Okay, can somebody please help me understand this income tax thing? I've read the Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....article01/) and it gives the congress the power to levy taxes. The reasonable and necessary clause logically extends that power to allow them to create a department to collect those taxes (IRS) and laws governing what is taxed and by how much (US income tax code). I know of no language in the Constitution that expressly addresses the concept on an income tax (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...../26.html#3), much less language that expressly prohibits same.
But please, enlighten me. I'm here to learn... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | Okay, can somebody please help me understand this income tax thing? I've read the Constitution |
Here is a very interesting article that was posted by thelast007 in regards to a lawsuit, where the prosecution could find no statutes in regads to this topic:
http://www.konformist.com/2000/whitey-harrell.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | Okay, can somebody please help me understand this income tax thing? I've read the Constitution |
Here is a very interesting article that was posted by thelast007 in regards to a lawsuit, where the prosecution could find no statutes in regads to this topic:
http://www.konformist.com/2000/whitey-harrell.htm |
I thought the discussion was about federal income tax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | Xerxes wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | Okay, can somebody please help me understand this income tax thing? I've read the Constitution |
Here is a very interesting article that was posted by thelast007 in regards to a lawsuit, where the prosecution could find no statutes in regads to this topic:
http://www.konformist.com/2000/whitey-harrell.htm |
I thought the discussion was about federal income tax. |
It said in the article that they were going to challenge the feds next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | Xerxes wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | Okay, can somebody please help me understand this income tax thing? I've read the Constitution |
Here is a very interesting article that was posted by thelast007 in regards to a lawsuit, where the prosecution could find no statutes in regads to this topic:
http://www.konformist.com/2000/whitey-harrell.htm |
I thought the discussion was about federal income tax. |
Exactly.
Just watch the link and you will understand. You'll say, "Ooooh!"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
It explains Whitey's whole case.
Previous post:
| thelast007 wrote: | This is the Illinois guy that won the case metioned in "Freedom to Fascism"
The United States V. Whitey Harrell
Story has it that state tax law depended on to a U.S. tax law that could not be shown by the state prosecutors because it does not exist.
http://www.konformist.com/2000/whitey-harrell.htm
If anyone has the gutts I wish you luck on having the luck he had.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: |
It said in the article that they were going to challenge the feds next. |
They're welcome to if they'd like, but the federal statutes do, in fact, exist.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc.....01_26.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The above link appears to me to be IRS statues.
The question is this...
are the IRS statues constitutional?
And if the statues do exist and they are not constitutional how can they be law?
And if we accept them to be lawful while in violation of our constitution then what is the use of our constitution?
am I only 27 but yet still old fashioned for thinking everything is supposed to be in line with the u.s. constitution?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| thelast007 wrote: |
The question is this...
are the IRS statues constitutional? |
Yeah, they are. Ammendment 16.
And yes, ammendment 16 was, in fact, ratified validly.
No, the objections you have are no good. They've been tried in court, and they've failed.
Be mindful of when healthy suspicion and skepticism turn into self-deception and obsession.
If you want income tax to go away, you're going to have to change the constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | thelast007 wrote: |
The question is this...
are the IRS statues constitutional? |
Yeah, they are. Ammendment 16.
And yes, ammendment 16 was, in fact, ratified validly.
No, the objections you have are no good. They've been tried in court, and they've failed.
Be mindful of when healthy suspicion and skepticism turn into self-deception and obsession.
If you want income tax to go away, you're going to have to change the constitution. |
that's an OJ guilty or not guily on the honesty of the ratification.
we will never all agree on the facts no matter what the jury ruled in the face of facts & obvious reality.
denial of reality could be seen as a coping mechanism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Appeals are ruled on by judges, not juries. This is not a matter of a jury full of idiots ignoring a blood soaked driveway and pair of gloves. The ratification argument has been tried multiple times in multiple courts (appeals courts, mind you), and has failed each and every time.
You can read about the cases here. And since it's wiki, i know you'll want to doubt it, but if provides case names for you to look up if you're still left wanting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._arguments |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | Appeals are ruled on by judges, not juries. This is not a matter of a jury full of idiots ignoring a blood soaked driveway and pair of gloves. The ratification argument has been tried multiple times in multiple courts (appeals courts, mind you), and has failed each and every time.
You can read about the cases here. And since it's wiki, i know you'll want to doubt it, but if provides case names for you to look up if you're still left wanting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._arguments |
jury or judge same argument.
recent court case.
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox "...if you examined the 16th ammendment carefully you will find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that ammendment." 2003
so it is just like i said. some belive in the court decision and some people & UNITED STATES JUDGES believe in reality.
which side are you on |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | Xerxes wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | Okay, can somebody please help me understand this income tax thing? I've read the Constitution |
Here is a very interesting article that was posted by thelast007 in regards to a lawsuit, where the prosecution could find no statutes in regads to this topic:
http://www.konformist.com/2000/whitey-harrell.htm |
I thought the discussion was about federal income tax. |
It said in the article that they were going to challenge the feds next. |
In which case I believe they will lose, and I believe that for the reasons I noted above. If you think you see something in the Constitution that I don't, please share it with me. Otherwise, the congress clearly has the constitutional authority to raise taxes and to create the necessary departments and positions to collect those taxes. It is there in simple, black and white English. Forget what someone else has told you to believe about the issue, and simply read article 1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....article01/) for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | Xerxes wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | Xerxes wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | Okay, can somebody please help me understand this income tax thing? I've read the Constitution |
Here is a very interesting article that was posted by thelast007 in regards to a lawsuit, where the prosecution could find no statutes in regads to this topic:
http://www.konformist.com/2000/whitey-harrell.htm |
I thought the discussion was about federal income tax. |
It said in the article that they were going to challenge the feds next. |
In which case I believe they will lose, and I believe that for the reasons I noted above. If you think you see something in the Constitution that I don't, please share it with me. Otherwise, the congress clearly has the constitutional authority to raise taxes and to create the necessary departments and positions to collect those taxes. It is there in simple, black and white English. Forget what someone else has told you to believe about the issue, and simply read article 1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....article01/) for yourself. |
no one ever disageed or disagrees with the fact that the government has the right to collect taxes and create the dept. to collect them.
that is not the issue at hand in this debate.
the issue is this: is it constitutional to impose a FEDERL tax on LABOR wages.
Within that debate are 3 other debates/issues.
(1) how is income defined constitutionally?
which takes you directly into debate #2
(2) are DIRECT taxes on labor wages(income) constitutional?
which then will lead you to debate # 3
(3) and was the 16th ammendment legally ratified.
AND EVEN IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE 16th AMMENDMENT WAS LEGALLY RATIFED the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED in the case of Stanton v. Blatic Mining "The provisions of the 16th ammendmnt confered no new power of taxation."
so if taxes we not legal beforethe 16th ammendment they still were not leagl after it.
I am not making this up people. I did not say that the Supreme Court said it.
I know it is hard to believe but the fact is direct taxes on labor wages are unconstitutional.
Last edited by thelast007 on Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:55 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| thelast007 wrote: | | exton wrote: | Appeals are ruled on by judges, not juries. This is not a matter of a jury full of idiots ignoring a blood soaked driveway and pair of gloves. The ratification argument has been tried multiple times in multiple courts (appeals courts, mind you), and has failed each and every time.
You can read about the cases here. And since it's wiki, i know you'll want to doubt it, but if provides case names for you to look up if you're still left wanting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._arguments |
jury or judge same argument.
|
So, in other words, you're arguing from human fallibility?
In some cases that might be a valid concern. Where the study of the natural universe is concerned, human opinion is not the final word on how things go.
That is not the case with laws. It is, in fact, the case that when a judge says something in a ruling, it's a valid comment on the nature of the law. The ruling may be later overturned, but again, that's judges commenting on laws.
| Quote: |
recent court case.
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox "...if you examined the 16th ammendment carefully you will find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that ammendment." 2003
so it is just like i said. some belive in the court decision and some people & UNITED STATES JUDGES believe in reality. |
Quote mining? Ouch. That's really low. Pitiful, even.
Have a read:
To buttress the claim that the 16th Amendment is invalid, the film displays a quotation from a federal district judge, James C. Fox. But the transcript from which the judge’s words were taken shows that while he spoke those words, they were in the context of laying out issues and that the conclusion he reached was the opposite of the words quoted.
Judge Fox, the transcript shows, concluded that no court would accept any argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified and therefore invalid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07.....nted=print
And i would highly recommend reading this webpage:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Particularly this part:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
