Thread: Government and taxes -> split from knives poll

Well, I went and did it. I've e-mailed FLS to receive my $100,000 for proving the legality of the 16th Amendment. It was too easy though, so I'm sure they're going to pull some technicality on me for which I'll have to spend considerably time researching.

Here's a rundown though, all from official record: the 16th Amendment was proposed properly in the house and senate, then properly ratified by over 3/4's of the state's legislatures, and certified by the Secretary of State. I haven't properly finished looking up caselaw, but what I can tell thus far is that the courts support it as well.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

the 16th Amendment was proposed properly in the house and senate, then properly ratified by over 3/4's of the state's legislatures, and certified by the Secretary of State.

I guess the issue is that many states rewrote the amendment as received from the federal government and voted on their own rewritten versions of the proposed amendment. The government and later courts accepted those votes and ratifications though because the differences were not important differences in their opinions (and I'm assuming because it would be nice to have all that money flowing in)

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I guess the issue is that many states rewrote the amendment as received from the federal government and voted on their own rewritten versions of the proposed amendment. The government and later courts accepted those votes and ratifications though because the differences were not important differences in their opinions (and I'm assuming because it would be nice to have all that money flowing in)

Got a link? I would think that since the states don't get the choice in the terms, a vote of yea or nay passed along to the government is assumed to be yea or nay with the original issue.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

Got a link?

Of course
This is taken from the Oklahoma case Benson v. Hunter from 2002

http://www.devvy.com/pdf/OKLAHOMA.PDF

The following quotes are taken from correspondence between the State of Oklahoma and the Secretary of State and Vice President of the United States in 1910

On page 5 you will find:

JOINT RESOLUTION.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures 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 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.”

And on page 11 you will find:

“A RESOLUTION RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE
SIXTY- FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ON
THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
AND NINE, TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND
DESIGNATED AS ARTICLE SIXTEEN.
“BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
SENATE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
“WHEREAS, The sixty-first Congress of the United States of America at its first
session begun and held at the city of Washington on Monday the fifteenth day of
March, one thousand nine hundred and nine, by joint resolution proposed an
amendment to the constitution of the United States, in words and figures as
follows, to wit:
“RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America, in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein)
that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the constitution of the
United States, which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the
several states, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the constitution:
“Article 16. The Congress shall have power to lay on (and) collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states,
and from any census or enumeration.
“Now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives and the
Senate of the State of Oklahoma in extraordinary session assembled, such subject
having been recommended by the Governor for consideration, that said proposed
amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is hereby ratified.
‘The question being shall the resolution pass as amended by the Senate, the roll
was called, the vote resulting as follows:
Yeas: .... Total 37.
Nayes: None.
Absent: ... Total – 6.

Benson surmises that the "and from" is a reversal of meaning from the original intent

Also as a side note, I had stated in the http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...tml#post235185 thread that I wondered how 3/4 of the states would have voted for such a measure, but upon more research I discovered the 17th amendment - it makes more sense to me now

Originally Posted by davisbonanza

Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms but it never gave the government the right to impose a direct tax on the people, ie, income tax. So I don't agree with your logic there, sorry.

I rather agree...in many ways the federal government has breeched its compact with the states, not the least of which is its infringement(s) - direct and indirect - on our right to bear arms. Taken to its logical conclusion, one might argue the union disolved. Odd that Democrats - the party of taxes, gun control - have in theory finally undone what the Republicans sought to preserve/impose in the Civil War.