What has the U.S. Supreme Court said about the Sixteenth Amendment?
Sunday, December 9, 2012 22:30
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
Subject: Re: What has the U.S. Supreme Court
said about the Sixteenth Amendment?
said about the Sixteenth Amendment?
Dave:
Looks
like an uphill battle, which govt. will resists with all of its might. What
strategies could be used to prevail that haven’t already been tried and failed?
like an uphill battle, which govt. will resists with all of its might. What
strategies could be used to prevail that haven’t already been tried and failed?
It
would seem that their greatest weakness is that it has been determined that the
16th was never properly ratified.
would seem that their greatest weakness is that it has been determined that the
16th was never properly ratified.
I’m not ready to embark upon still another
legal crusade, unless there is a plan to actually win. The establishment might
actually throw Obama under the bus, if the circumstances were right. He is
expendable, but the tax revenues flowing from the current interpretation of the
16th are NOT.
legal crusade, unless there is a plan to actually win. The establishment might
actually throw Obama under the bus, if the circumstances were right. He is
expendable, but the tax revenues flowing from the current interpretation of the
16th are NOT.
Regards,
George Miller
http://venturacountyteaparty.com
George Miller
http://venturacountyteaparty.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—–Original
Message—–
From: David LaRocque [email protected]>
To: David LaRocque [email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Dec 9, 2012 10:02 am
Subject: What has the U.S. Supreme Court said about the Sixteenth Amendment?
Message—–
From: David LaRocque [email protected]>
To: David LaRocque [email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Dec 9, 2012 10:02 am
Subject: What has the U.S. Supreme Court said about the Sixteenth Amendment?
What has the U.S.Supreme
Court said about the Sixteenth Amendment?
Court said about the Sixteenth Amendment?
“The Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax,
nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution”
nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution”
By Peter Hendrickson, Author “Cracking the Code: The Fascinating
Truth About Taxation in America”
Truth About Taxation in America”
December 7, 2012
Perhaps the following, excerpted from my larger articles at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/AllEconomicActivityIsNotIncome.htm
and
and
http://losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf
will help clarify the effect of the 16th Amendment.
will help clarify the effect of the 16th Amendment.
The apportionment requirement on a capitation or other direct tax
was not changed by the 16th Amendment. The Supreme
Court, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the
case taken up by the court for the express purpose of settling the meaning and
effect of the 16th Amendment, addresses Brushaber’s contention that the
amendment provides for a non-apportioned capitation or other direct tax as
follows:
was not changed by the 16th Amendment. The Supreme
Court, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the
case taken up by the court for the express purpose of settling the meaning and
effect of the 16th Amendment, addresses Brushaber’s contention that the
amendment provides for a non-apportioned capitation or other direct tax as
follows:
“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not
inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment
provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an
income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of
apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the
far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by
generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…”
inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment
provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an
income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of
apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the
far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by
generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…”
Noting that nothing in the 16th Amendment repeals Article 1,
s. 9, cl. 4 imposing the apportionment requirement on capitations and other
direct taxes, the court points out that Brushaber’s erroneous argument
would cause:
s. 9, cl. 4 imposing the apportionment requirement on capitations and other
direct taxes, the court points out that Brushaber’s erroneous argument
would cause:
“…one provision of the Constitution [to] destroy another; that
is, [it] would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment
[supposedly] exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable
conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned.“
is, [it] would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment
[supposedly] exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable
conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned.“
The court declares that the only effect of the 16th Amendment is
to overrule the Pollock decision’s characterization of the application of the
tax to rent and dividends that otherwise qualify as “income” as
really being a direct tax, and therefore invoking the apportionment
requirement, based on the reasoning that the source of the dividends is
personal property (the stock), and to tax the dividend is effectively to tax
the source.
to overrule the Pollock decision’s characterization of the application of the
tax to rent and dividends that otherwise qualify as “income” as
really being a direct tax, and therefore invoking the apportionment
requirement, based on the reasoning that the source of the dividends is
personal property (the stock), and to tax the dividend is effectively to tax
the source.
The court reiterates this point repeatedly in subsequent rulings:
“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new
power of taxation…”
power of taxation…”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240
U.S. 103 (1916);
U.S. 103 (1916);
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be
put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the
taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”
put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the
taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”
Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918);
“[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment
confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without
apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly
regarded as income.”
confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without
apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly
regarded as income.”
Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929) (Emphasis added.)
Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard
summarizes this point for Congress in hearing testimony in 1943:
summarizes this point for Congress in hearing testimony in 1943:
“[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment
income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the
character of the tax. It is
still fundamentally an excise or duty* with respect to the privilege of
carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.”
income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the
character of the tax. It is
still fundamentally an excise or duty* with respect to the privilege of
carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.”
(*Note: “Excise or Duty”
puts the income tax squarely into the class of indirect taxes as authorized in
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution, subject to the
requirement of uniformity. Indirect taxes are also characterized by being
voluntary and avoidable as a result of their application to discretionary
activities, and are subject to collection by a third party. The federal
gasoline tax is a clear example.)
puts the income tax squarely into the class of indirect taxes as authorized in
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution, subject to the
requirement of uniformity. Indirect taxes are also characterized by being
voluntary and avoidable as a result of their application to discretionary
activities, and are subject to collection by a third party. The federal
gasoline tax is a clear example.)
Here is Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the
Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled
‘Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws’:
Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled
‘Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws’:
“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice
White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new
type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of
the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding
the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of
apportionment…”
White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new
type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of
the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding
the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of
apportionment…”
In 1988, the Supreme Court again re-iterates that the 16th
Amendment doesn’t allow the application of the tax to anything not already
properly subject to it before the amendment was ever adopted:
Amendment doesn’t allow the application of the tax to anything not already
properly subject to it before the amendment was ever adopted:
“The legislative history merely shows… …that the sole
purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement
for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable.”
purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement
for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable.”
So. Carolina v.
Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
(Emphasis added.)
Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
(Emphasis added.)
In fact, today’s tax remains in large part a body of enactments
preceding the 16th Amendment by 51 years:
preceding the 16th Amendment by 51 years:
“The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January
2, 1939… …has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress.
The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16,
1938.”
2, 1939… …has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress.
The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16,
1938.”
(The current
codified version of the tax statutes was first called the IRC of 1954 and then
later relabeled the IRC of 1986, but with the exception of some
statutes-at-large enacted in the interim, it remains for the most part derived
from the IRC of 1939. See the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation
derivation tables here. That code, as you see, is itself derived in
large part from pre-16th amendment enactments.)
codified version of the tax statutes was first called the IRC of 1954 and then
later relabeled the IRC of 1986, but with the exception of some
statutes-at-large enacted in the interim, it remains for the most part derived
from the IRC of 1939. See the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation
derivation tables here. That code, as you see, is itself derived in
large part from pre-16th amendment enactments.)
Now, don’t let the significance of what you’ve just read escape
you. What qualifies as “income,” and is subject to the tax, was
identified and taxed as such long before the 16th Amendment. NOTHING IS TAXABLE WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT NOW THAT WASN’T
TAXABLE WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT THEN.
you. What qualifies as “income,” and is subject to the tax, was
identified and taxed as such long before the 16th Amendment. NOTHING IS TAXABLE WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT NOW THAT WASN’T
TAXABLE WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT THEN.
As the Supreme Court says over and over, all the 16th Amendment
did is override the Pollock court’s decision holding that apportionment must be
applied in order to tax even “income”-qualified dividends and rent,
because of their relationship to their sources. The 16th neither
ended or repealed the apportionment requirement for any tax that had qualified
as a capitation or other direct tax before it, nor did it “initiate”
the income tax, which was already 51 years old when the amendment was declared
adopted.
did is override the Pollock court’s decision holding that apportionment must be
applied in order to tax even “income”-qualified dividends and rent,
because of their relationship to their sources. The 16th neither
ended or repealed the apportionment requirement for any tax that had qualified
as a capitation or other direct tax before it, nor did it “initiate”
the income tax, which was already 51 years old when the amendment was declared
adopted.
|
Cracking
the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America
by Peter E.
Hendrickson
Lost Horizons, 2003, 232
pages, $24.95
Reviewed
by Steve Thomas
“There’s
no shortage of frivolous books on the market that make the claim that you can avoid taxes. ‘Cracking The Code’ is not one of them.”
Any student of liberty and of the founding of the United States has to
know intuitively that the current tax code of our federal government could have never been the intention of our Founding Fathers. One can take it as a given that the Founders would be disheartened and outraged by the growth and perversion of the federal government – and the abuse of power it employs in collecting taxes from the people.
I have often wondered how much different the course of American history
would be if an economist like Milton Friedman or James Buchanan – with two hundred years of hindsight – could be transported back in time to advise the Founders on Constitutional issues like taxation. Perhaps they could provide the Founders with insights that would have made the Constitution impervious to time and the “factions” that so troubled them.
In his recently published book, Cracking The Code: The Fascinating
Truth About Taxation In America, libertarian author Peter Eric Hendrickson makes it perfectly clear that America’s Founders were very much aware of the dangers associated with the federal government’s power to tax. Accordingly, they established a wholly viable system of checks and balances within the Constitution to prevent the federal government from abusing its taxing power. Hendrickson also points out that the Founders actually had a renowned economist (if indirectly) advising them: a capable Scotsman by the name of Adam Smith.
The Constitution calls for direct taxes (i.e., those which are
unavoidable) to be apportioned according to each state’s population. That means that federal taxes are supposed to be collected from the states proportionate to their percentage of the nation’s total population – not directly from individuals.
Even the Sixteenth Amendment, which is widely misunderstood as having
established an “income” tax, actually represents only a slight modification of the tax already in place at the time of its proposal. It did not change the Constitution’s restriction on direct taxation.
Nonetheless, a widespread misunderstanding of the effects of that
amendment has successfully been exploited to convince Americans that everything changed in 1913. People wrongly believe that the amendment gives the government the legal ability to take citizen’s property at will – but nothing could be further from the truth, says Hendrickson. There’s a reason why we hear all the time that it’s a ‘voluntary’ system, and it’s not because we all ‘volunteer’ to save the government the trouble of doing the paperwork.
It is Hendrickson’s contention that the only people from whom the
federal government can legally demand an “income” tax are those who are direct beneficiaries of the federal government. Such parties would include federal employees, contractors and those who benefit from government licensing. In other words, if you are a private citizen who earns a salary, Hendrickson claims that you do not have to pay “income” taxes – including FICA – to the federal government.
Don’t believe him? Then go to Hendrickson’s website (www.losthorizons.com)
and bear witness to the unthinkable: a letter from the IRS acknowledging that his claim of “money improperly withheld.” is valid. But don’t expect your accountant or attorney to jump on Hendrickson’s bandwagon any time soon. Their jobs – and those of millions of others – depend on your confusion and fear when it comes to the IRS and the bewildering tax code it enforces.
Cracking The Code is a product of the information age. The Internet and
its search engines allowed Hendrickson to not only wade through the entire tax code, but to investigate and cross-reference its content: all 3,413,780 words of it. What Hendrickson found is that the tax code, regardless of its confusing and misleading language, is consistent with the Constitution’s original restriction on direct taxes – and that there is no legal way for the federal government to enforce an “income” tax on the labor or earnings of private citizens. Hendrickson cites clear and consistent case law throughout the book to back his claim – including a plethora from the United States Supreme Court.
Readers of Cracking The Code will undoubtedly experience a paradigm
shift in their thinking as they make their way through its pages. Skepticism and doubt will slowly be replaced with certainty and conviction as Hendrickson systematically walks his readers through the law and the tax code’s maze of confusion. But it won’t come easy.
As Thomas Paine once wrote in Common Sense, “ . . . a long habit of not
thinking something wrong, gives it the superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” Paine’s wisdom undoubtedly applies to the sentiments most Americans have when it comes to the way income taxes are imposed upon them.
There’s no shortage of frivolous books on the market that make the
claim that you can avoid taxes. Cracking The Code is not one of them. It is a judicious and thoughtful work written by an American patriot deeply dedicated to the rule of law. Hopefully, this book will find its way into the hands of concerned citizens, legal scholars and federal judges who truly believe in upholding the Constitution – and who are sympathetic to the cause of liberty. # # #
Steve
Thomas is a freelance writer and businessman in Detroit, Michigan, and an Adjunct Scholar with the Mackinac Center For Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. |
NESARA- Restore America – Galactic News
2012-12-09 22:21:36
Source: http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-has-us-supreme-court-said-about.html
Source:
Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world. Anyone can join. Anyone can contribute. Anyone can become informed about their world. "United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
LION'S MANE PRODUCT
Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules
Mushrooms are having a moment. One fabulous fungus in particular, lion’s mane, may help improve memory, depression and anxiety symptoms. They are also an excellent source of nutrients that show promise as a therapy for dementia, and other neurodegenerative diseases. If you’re living with anxiety or depression, you may be curious about all the therapy options out there — including the natural ones.Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend has been formulated to utilize the potency of Lion’s mane but also include the benefits of four other Highly Beneficial Mushrooms. Synergistically, they work together to Build your health through improving cognitive function and immunity regardless of your age. Our Nootropic not only improves your Cognitive Function and Activates your Immune System, but it benefits growth of Essential Gut Flora, further enhancing your Vitality.
Our Formula includes: Lion’s Mane Mushrooms which Increase Brain Power through nerve growth, lessen anxiety, reduce depression, and improve concentration. Its an excellent adaptogen, promotes sleep and improves immunity. Shiitake Mushrooms which Fight cancer cells and infectious disease, boost the immune system, promotes brain function, and serves as a source of B vitamins. Maitake Mushrooms which regulate blood sugar levels of diabetics, reduce hypertension and boosts the immune system. Reishi Mushrooms which Fight inflammation, liver disease, fatigue, tumor growth and cancer. They Improve skin disorders and soothes digestive problems, stomach ulcers and leaky gut syndrome. Chaga Mushrooms which have anti-aging effects, boost immune function, improve stamina and athletic performance, even act as a natural aphrodisiac, fighting diabetes and improving liver function. Try Our Lion’s Mane WHOLE MIND Nootropic Blend 60 Capsules Today. Be 100% Satisfied or Receive a Full Money Back Guarantee. Order Yours Today by Following This Link.
MOST RECENT
HELP KEEP NEWS FREE
DONATE
HERE
| Visits: | 1,708,403,069 |
| Stories: | 8,450,334 |
Wanted: Citizen Reporters,
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
"Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." Zechariah 4:6
Today's Top Stories
Featured
Top Global
Top Alternative