The Real Obama
- Thread starter medicineman
- Start date
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
Well seeing as though you seem to have a pretty strong opinion on the fact, i assumed that you would have done come digging.Make an assertion and suggest I do the research.
That's funny.
Since you were so quick to say that "it is even constitutional" i figured you found where it was constitutional.
I gave one of many examples of my point (granted it was a little over produced for effect lol) and you just said oh this that blah blah. See you just pass it off and say oh no thats not good enough. You obviously didn't listen..or you could give a shit less b/c your comfy in your beliefs....which is fine
but i'd really like you to show me where it says it is legal. And an IRS official saying "its in the constitution" doesn't count. 
ccodiane
New Member
Can you fly, like Superman? Don't ask anyone to prove you can't if the answer is yes.Well seeing as though you seem to have a pretty strong opinion on the fact, i assumed that you would have done come digging.
Since you were so quick to say that "it is even constitutional" i figured you found where it was constitutional.
I gave one of many examples of my point (granted it was a little over produced for effect lol) and you just said oh this that blah blah. See you just pass it off and say oh no thats not good enough. You obviously didn't listen..or you could give a shit less b/c your comfy in your beliefs....which is fine
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
ccodiane
New Member
Well, 3 billion years worth of production should last us at least a couple hundred years? Or is that a ludicrous assumption? (Ludicrous because we should have a million years worth of reserves, at this point.)Granted....but we use it a whole lot quicker than it takes to produce.
Last edited:
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
Not a ludacris assumption at all!
I'm not saying that we don't have oil. I'm saying we can produce enough ourselves......and not to be rude but what point are you making?
I've stated that we have plenty of land to drill oil to produce....
I'm confused.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Even on my worst day I'm not gonna do the digging to prove someone else's point. LOL!Well seeing as though you seem to have a pretty strong opinion on the fact, i assumed that you would have done come digging.
Since you were so quick to say that "it is even constitutional" i figured you found where it was constitutional.
I gave one of many examples of my point (granted it was a little over produced for effect lol) and you just said oh this that blah blah. See you just pass it off and say oh no thats not good enough. You obviously didn't listen..or you could give a shit less b/c your comfy in your beliefs....which is fine
I'll verify your sources all day long. But in the art of persuasion, the person making the assertion must present credible and verifiable evidence in order to persuade.
I said it was Constitutional, then I quoted the Constitution! How much sourcing do you require?
I watched your evidence once and listened to it again just to make sure I understood. I did. Nothing new there.
Moonbat propaganda. Blah, Blah, blah....
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
I don't want you to prove my point i'd like you to prove yours.
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) all income taxes had been considered to be excises (indirect taxes) required to be imposed with geographical uniformity; such taxes were not required to be apportioned by state according to population (as are direct taxes).[6]
The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax of 2% on incomes over $4,000. Derided as "un-Democratic, inquisitorial, and wrong in principle,"[7] it was challenged in federal court. Until that time, direct taxes had been deemed to include only capitations, or poll taxes (taxes directly on persons) and taxes imposed on property by reason of its ownership (generally, ordinary ad valorem property taxes). Until 1895, all income taxes regardless of the sources of the incomes had been considered indirect taxes ("excises").[8]
[edit] The Pollock case
In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared certain income taxes taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.
This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).
During this period from 1895 to 1913 when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, while Congress could have re-imposed taxes on income from labor and other non-property sources without apportionment by population, imposing taxes on interest, dividends and rent income would not have been practical (as the dollar amount of income from interest, dividends and rent would virtually never be exactly the same amount for each and every taxpayer in the United States for any year). The Congress was unwilling to impose an income tax on labor and other non-property sources without also imposing a tax on income from property and taxes on income from property were no longer realistic. The Pollock ruling made imposition of an income tax politically unfeasible from 1895 until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. At the same time, the Congress was reflecting the growing concern among many elements of society that the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power.[9]
In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:
When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.[10]
[edit] Ratification process
The Socialist Labor Party advocated for a graduated income tax in 1887.[11] The Populist Party "demanded a graduated income tax" in their 1892 platform.[12] The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894,[13] and proposed an income tax in their 1908 platform.[14] President Taft proposed a constitutional amendment in an address to Congress to allow federal income taxes on individuals and an excise tax "upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock" on June 16, 1909.[15][16]
The resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to legislatures of the several states on July 12, 1909. Support for the income tax was strongest in the western states, and opposition was strongest in the northeastern states.[17] The governor of New York, Charles Evans Hughes, who a few years later became a Supreme Court justice, opposed the income tax amendment because he believed "from whatever source derived" implied that passage would confer the federal government with the power to tax state and municipal bonds and thus excessively centralize government power.[18]
The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax.[19] On February 25, 1913, the Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution. An income tax, the Revenue Act of 1913 was shortly passed by Congress.
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[20]
- Alabama (August 10, 1909)
- Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
- South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
- Illinois (March 1, 1910)
- Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
- Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
- Maryland (April 8, 1910)
- Georgia (August 3, 1910)
- Texas (August 16, 1910)
- Ohio (January 19, 1911)
- Idaho (January 20, 1911)
- Oregon (January 23, 1911)
- Washington (January 26, 1911)
- Montana (January 27, 1911)
- Indiana (January 30, 1911)
- California (January 31, 1911)
- Nevada (January 31, 1911)
- South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
- Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
- North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
- Colorado (February 15, 1911)
- North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
- Michigan (February 23, 1911)
- Iowa (February 24, 1911)
- Kansas (March 2, 1911)
- Missouri (March 16, 1911)
- Maine (March 31, 1911)
- Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
- Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
- Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
- New York (July 12, 1911)
- Arizona (April 3, 1912)
- Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
- Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
- West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
- New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
37. Delaware (February 3, 1913) 38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) 39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913) 40. Vermont (February 19, 1913) 41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) 42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911 The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
- Connecticut
- Florida (rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states)
- Rhode Island
- Utah
- Pennsylvania
- Virginia
The Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock.[21] That essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.[22] In Abrams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court stated: "Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."[23]
[edit] Case law
The federal courts' interpretations of the Sixteenth Amendment have changed considerably over time and there have been many disputes about the applicability of the amendment.
[edit] The Brushaber case
In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that (1) the Sixteenth Amendment removes the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes (such as taxes on income "derived from real property" that were the subject of the Pollock decision), be apportioned among the states according to population;[24] (2) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law; (3) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (relating to the requirement that excises, also known as indirect taxes, be imposed with geographical uniformity).
[edit] The Kerbaugh-Empire Co. case
In the Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), Mr. Justice Butler stated:
It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
[edit] The Glenshaw Glass case
In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealthwhether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actionsare all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party,[25] gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances,[26] and certain scholarships.[27]
[edit] Income taxation of wages, etc.
The courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment as standing for the rule that the Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[28]
[edit] The Penn Mutual case
Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the "source" of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes (a power the Congress has had since 1789), but only removed the requirement, if any, that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In the Penn Mutual Indemnity case, the United States Tax Court stated:
In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.[29]
In that same Penn Mutual Indemnity case, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed, stating:
It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601 (1895), only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.
It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label. Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years.
It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.[30]
[edit] The Murphy case
On December 22, 2006, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated[31] its own unanimous August 2006 opinion in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States.[32] The original three judge panel then agreed to rehear the case itself. In its original August 2006 decision, the Court had ruled that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) was unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purported to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings.
Because the August 2006 opinion was vacated, the full court did not hear the case en banc.
On July 3, 2007, the Court (through the original three-judge panel) ruled (1) that the taxpayer's compensation was received on account of a non-physical injury or sickness; (2) that gross income under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code[33] does include compensatory damages for non-physical injuries, even if the award is not an "accession to wealth," (3) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries is an indirect tax, regardless of whether the recovery is restoration of "human capital," and therefore the tax does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 9, that capitations or other direct taxes must be laid among the states only in proportion to the population; (4) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 8, that all duties, imposts and excises be uniform throughout the United States; (5) that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Internal Revenue Service may not be sued in its own name.[34]
The Court stated that "[a]lthough the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact,' [ . . . ] it can label a thing income and tax it, so long as it acts within its constitutional authority, which includes not only the Sixteenth Amendment but also Article I, Sections 8 and 9."[35] The court ruled that Ms. Murphy was not entitled to the tax refund she claimed, and that the personal injury award she received was "within the reach of the congressional power to tax under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution" -- even if the award was "not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment".[36] See also the Penn Mutual case cited above.
On April 21, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.[37]
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
Honestly you could argue both sides all day......But it doesn't make sense to me that we have taxes on almost everything already......where does the income tax money go to?
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
I shouldn't have said illegal.....i should have said unconstitutional.....obviously legallity is determined by those with the cash.....seeing as though we're what....half a trillion dollars in debt, it's not us.
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
In 1894, an income tax law was enacted that taxed income from both wages and income from property. The Supreme Court decided that a tax on income from property (rental income) was the same as a tax on the property itself which was a direct tax and had to be apportioned. Since it wasn't apportioned, the tax on rental income was declare unconstitutional. The law did not differentiate between the types of income and the Supreme Court could not separate the two types of tax, so the entire section was declared unconstitutional
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The Pollock case was in 1895. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913.
From your evidence:
From your evidence:
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Last edited:
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The ratification didn't give them any new taxing powers though.
A constitution is a system for governance, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles of an autonomous political entity.
The Constitution serves as the basis for the law. When a new law is enacted it is measured against the Constitution. The laws authorizing new taxing powers are decided in the courts based on their adherence to the Constitution. Separation of Powers.
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get his case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount," he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.
What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax -- the granddaddy of the state income taxes -- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.
That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.
In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."
All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.
The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.
Of the 48 states, here's the story:
- Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
- Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
- Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
- Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
- Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
- And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)
also
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
In this mans videos he interviews people who have gone to prison and won court cases. Supreme Court cases. If laws are made by the courts and they rule this way why is it just being tossed aside?
I think you may enjoy this man better than the first video i posted.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Who is this Benson? I can't verify anything with a first or last name only.
What is the source of this cut and paste?
Aaron Russo is a well known character to Alex Jones fans. Alex Jones produces entertainment. Not credible. Blah, blah, blah....also
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
In this mans videos he interviews people who have gone to prison and won court cases. Supreme Court cases. If laws are made by the courts and they rule this way why is it just being tossed aside?
I think you may enjoy this man better than the first video i posted.
Last edited:
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
Sorry i meant to cite it. Was actually getting the link for you.
Maybe if you watched his interviews with former IRS officials you would see where he's coming from. To not even look at is silly. Why not get both sides?
You have the first compeling argument i've seen on this topic *which says a lot about potheads!*
EDIT: Might help if i add it!
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Cornell University Law School mentions the ratification, but not the dispute as to its validity.
EDIT: Got the link, thanks. The non-ratification argument is intriguing.
Income tax | LII / Legal Information Institute
EDIT: Got the link, thanks. The non-ratification argument is intriguing.
Last edited: