I guess I just IMAGINED the 16th Amendment.
Unfair? Check. Reprehensible? Check. Theft? Hell yeah.
But how can something expressly enacted through a Constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?
Farnsworth, who ran for the 8th Congressional District, claims the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress power to impose an income tax.
This goofball needs to get a valid position.
posted by The Last American at 9:30:00 AM
View blog reactions
1 Comments:
There are several anti-income-tax arguments pertaining to the 16th Amendment.Not saying I subscribe to any of them, but they do exist.
One argument is that the amendment was never ratified. This does sound somewhat "tinfoil turbanish," but several books have been written on the subject (the title of one, I recall, is _The Law That Never Was__), and apparently the text of the Amendment as ratified differed from Congress to the states, and between the state legislatures.
If you ratify an amendment that says X, and I ratify an amendment that says Y, did we ratify the same amendment?
Another line of argument, which seems to be well-supported by evidence,is that the courts have held that the 16th Amendment does not empower Congress to lay a federal income tax _like the one we currently have_. There seem to have been several rulings in the period 1913-1920 or so in which courts, including the Supreme Court, held that a _direct_ tax on income, which was prohibited earlier in the Constitution, was not introduced by the 16th amendment.
Of course, I try to keep my own argument on the issue somewhat simpler:
File Under Forget ItRegards,
Tom Knapp
Post a Comment
<< Home