Hey look at the newest from the Tea Party Patriots:



NATIONAL PETITION TO REPEAL THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Fact or Fiction?

stupid, the government has to have some money... taxes have always been a part of history, not a big deal

Not from "persons". That has only happened after we were sold to the banks under the Federal Reserve Act as collateral on the national debt and the IRS was founded to collect on that debt by the banks under the act.

If the govt simply did its job of protecting rights, the nation and levying trade tarrifs instead of usurping control and spending our childrens, childrens future, there would be no need for a federal tax on the people....only state taxes, a portion of which would go to the US Corporation

It's all about the govt interpretation of the Commerce Clause

if? if the rabbit wouldn't have stopped to chit, the wolf wouldn't have caught him...

the whole article just seems to be a platform to gain more votes for a more perverted form of republicans..

The government has more money than it can spend on legitimate means, that is why it gives so much away to foreigners.

Government Tax and Revenue Chart

Federal 2013 Government Revenue

Oh look, the government has $2.8 trillion in lawful direct tax revenue (excise taxes) and $0.3 trillion in other taxes. And the Federal Reserve got $1.6 trillion in income taxes, a large portion of which were unconstitutional by way of smoke and mirrors.

Additionally, the country did fine before the 16th Amendment was passed and even today, the income tax does not run the government, it goes to the Federal Reserve as their profits for printing fiat pieces of paper. So no it hasn't been always been a part of history, the income tax was proposed in conjunction with the Federal Reserve.

The 16th Amendment in reality wasn't even ratified and that has been proven and suppressed by the courts as a frivolous argument. Why frivolous argument, because to try the case would prove the facts, the actual ratification documents as evidence. How do you stop the facts from becoming evidence, you don't allow the case to be tried.

And it would only not be a big deal to those desiring to be a slave for a government of supposed limited powers. Just imagine how big an idiot one would have to be to stand up and declare the government "owns" the first 35% of me, the slaves.

The Sixteenth Amendment

In 1894 Congress enacted another federal income tax. This tax would allow for not only salaries but ANY OTHER compensation that was paid to anyone who was in the privileged sector. The Supreme Court declared that this was unconstitutional because if you tax gains from personal property, then that is just like taxing the property itself, and is therefore a direct tax.

"The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded: that such tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied:"

Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

But this created a loophole. Someone who had otherwise "taxable income" could attempt to get out of paying taxes by assigning that income to his/her personal property which would take it out of the category of indirect and make it a direct tax. To make a long story short, this is what led to the 16th amendment.

The 16th amendment reads "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States...."

So, did this amendment authorize everyone to be taxed, or did it just close the loophole? If you notice, it doesn't say that congress has the power to lay and collect direct taxes. So in order for this amendment to be compliant with Article 1, section 9 of the constitution, it would seem that it could only mean the same indirect tax that it had always meant. What did the Supreme Court have to say about it?

"The 16th Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes the occasion for apportioning taxes on income among the states. Neither can the tax be sustained as a tax on the person, measured by income. Such a tax would be by nature a capitation rather than an excise."

PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165(1918).

"The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

"The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted."

EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

So, it looks like the fact that it is said that international bankers (J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, and John D. Rockefeller) bribed Secretary of State Philander Knox into fraudulently declaring that the 16th amendment had been properly ratified when it had not, really didn't matter. Even after the 16th amendment, only a small percentage of Americans paid "income" tax.

What does the commerce clause really mean?

http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/04/24/what-does-the-commerce-clause-really-mean/

Well the article does seem to draw out the prejudicial idiocy of so many of the masses, from both sides. But I do have to give those Tea Party Patriots credit, they do keep tying. Now if they could only figure out that tigers don't change their stripes, they may actually get somewhere.

And that was to be expected, the answer of the entitlement crowd.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

Very true, and another thing the Supreme Court has implied is the income tax is a voluntary tax and so many volunteer. The IRS keeps saying that it is the 1040 that is the voluntary part, that taxpayers voluntary file Form 1040s. But that is not the truth within the aspect of why?

Why, because everyone is afraid that the IRS will seize what they want if you do not comply. But what people fail to realize is that that are the ones that empower the IRS to act that way. It is done when the taxpayer declares themselves to be a taxpayer, under penalty of perjury.

If you want to have fun with the IRS, force them into tax court, make them swear you in (that is the hard part, case usually gets dismissed at this point), and then declare you were coercised into declaring yourself a taxpayer. There is no way they can afford to have that go to trial.

The only ones to date to declare not being a taxpayer were conveniently not sworn in which means no perjury.

the Odumbocare Supreme Court case resolved the Commerce clause in reference to Odumbocare, declared unconstitutional. They also tried using the Necessary and Proper clause and that was also struck down as unconstitutional.

But exactly what does the commerce clause convey, nothing but that which the original framers conferred to it. And that can be determined by Federalist 42, written by Madison:



And that is it's full meaning in the words of the founders at the time of ratification. And in the terms of law, it can mean no other, as that would be a highjack of an implied power.

Ayn Rand would have gotten along famously with the founding fathers. But because she was female, it would only have been informally.

But in the federal government, that would be the direct tax of $2.8 trillion collected during 2013. And these are voluntary taxes, if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the products that are taxed.

A good example of this is the gasoline tax, if you don't use gasoline for your vehicle, you don't pay the tax for using the highways. But what is a crime here is the municipal transportation system being exempt from paying the tax on a service they use and then pass that tax back on the people that aren't using it.

Some interesting reading:

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

whole thing is, just because you don't approve of what the governments spending the money on doesn't mean they don't need it... if y'all don't want to pay taxes, then don't... not a big on my end...

Saying it again doesn't make it any more valid this time than it did a few posts ago.

This country was founded on a republic with limited and enumerated powers to the central government. But through time, there have been many idiots of many descriptions that have just said, "no big thing" during every little time the government has overstepped it bounds encouraging them to continue forward.

And because of these idiots we have the likes of Carter, Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, and now Odumbo empowered to believe they are a leader where no leader exists.

And to just up and say that the government should have what they aren't entitled to have is perhaps one of the most idiotic statements of the century.

Control education and you control opinion/perception. Control the peoples media and you control their minds. Control their money and you control them.

whatever, that was then, this is now... move to country that has no taxes...

How so very true. With the mindset of our forefathers being so engaged on freedom and the matters of freedom, this country posed a real challenge for conquering. So they came up with a brilliant scheme, control the education system and you can control the mindset as you have said.

That is just what they did when they pronounced the public education system and passed laws effecting their control. Then to instill their goals, they dropped civics and instilled government in it's place. And it took but 70 years before their first major accomplishment, first the 16th Amendment and then the Federal Reserve Act.

But now we are 160 years later and we have a society of indoctrinated idiots that has sunk a country that achieved greatness and prosperity in such a short period of time into a cesspool of the lowest esteem.

And you have but to look around you to see the exact extent of the damage that has been done.