10 points to anyone who knows the following law.?

Question

Show me where in the constitution, that it says people must pay taxes to the government on their income. (income tax)

Sound easy? good luck.

Answer 1

There is nothing in the constitution that says people must pay taxes...period.

But the constitution does empower congress to pass tax laws that are enforceable by the rules of law. This can be found in Article 1, section 8:

"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, "

Similarly the 16th amendment did not create new tax laws. It only removed a previous Supreme Court objection to the Income Tax laws regarding apportionment.

I can certainly understand your point of view if you're using "Freedom to Fascism" as your source for information.

The filmmaker Aaron Russo is part of a movement often called "tax protestors" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protest... ) A more accurate term would be "tax law deniers". They surround themselves in dubious legal claims that thrive within their community, but fall short in the courts. The film represents a propaganda piece for his views.

The assertion that the 16th Amendment was not ratified has never held up in court. However, the arguments are quite creative (like the Illinois version had misspellings and, my favorite, Ohio wasn't really a state).

If you're interested in more analysis on the topic, check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protest...

If you plan to continue to espouse the Russo doctrine, I recommend that you educate yourself on the counterarguments.

Answer 2

Another person who actually believes the c**p in Freedom to Fascism.

The movie "Freedom to Fascism" is inaccurate, conspiracy theory nonsense.I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites.

Federal income taxes are NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The IRS is NOT ABOVE the Supreme Court. It just happens to be the case that the IRS usually acts within the law.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,..."

Income taxes are legal under the Constitution because income taxes are INDIRECT taxes in a Constitutional sense. In HYLTON v. U S, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), a Supreme Court that included at least two of the original framers of the Constitution, Justice Samuel Chase stated, "...the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

In 1861, the first income tax law in the U.S. was passed. In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) (A Supreme Court case), the court had to consider whether an income tax on an individual was constitutional. The court stated, "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." Springer was the plaintiff in error. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax law that was in effect in 1865.

After the ratification of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court in STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) stated, "...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of 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..."

BTW, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which later became the IRS, was established in 1862.

The book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated,

[QUOTE]

"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so."

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted.

[END QUOTE]

A few sentences later in the same decision, the court continues, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review."

[END QUOTE OF CASE]

Judge Fox's statement was in the context of giving an example. He was not making a statement of fact. The comments made by Judge Fox were made in passing, without judicial review, and in a case that had nothing to do with the 16th amendment. In the end, the Judge also said that he didn't think any court would ever set it aside.

The current income tax laws are codified as Title 26 of the U.S. Code. You can read them at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc... or at http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_2...

It is long and boring reading, but they are all there. The sections that apply to most people are sections 1, 61, 62, 63, 3402, 6011, and 6012.

The Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance.

The quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

The Federal Reserve is independently audited every year. Those audits and more are part of the Federal Reserve annual report to Congress.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/...

Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it.

There are many more quotes in the movie that are taken completely out of context and there are many claims in the movie that are just plain wrong.

BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in the movie was tried for willful failure to file and tax evasion on Oct. 29 and 30, 2007. GUILTY on all counts. Sentencing was on February 14, 2008 and she was sentenced to 4 years in prison. Additionally, SHE STILL HAS TO PAY HER TAXES.

A few people have successfully beaten criminal charges, but that doesn't mean there isn't a law any more than O.J. Simpson's acquittal means there isn't a law concerning the murder of your ex-wife.

To summarize, there is a law concerning income taxes, it is Title 26 U.S.C. If you earn more than the standard deduction, you must file tax returns. Wages from a job are income. Income is NOT limited to corporate profits. The Federal Reserve is not some great conspiracy. etc. etc.

BTW, an income tax on wages earned from employment was NEVER ruled to be unconstitutional.  The Pollock court ruled that an income tax on income earned from property, similar to rental income, was the same as a tax on the property itself and was a direct tax.  However, the same decision stated that an income tax on wages was not a direct tax and was constitutional.

Answer 3

Amendment 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.

I have never heard that it was done illegally (I'll need more sources too) but either way don't think I'm for it (I oppose it or how big it is right now), (I'll look for other sources too, just never heard of that before.)

Answer 4

it was not in the constitution till the 16 admendment.....  so I suggest you pay your taxes..... no matter what you think congress does have the power to do this. no matter how much it sux.

Answer 5

That was easy, the constitution limits powers of government not give rights or set rules for people.

Answer 6

16th amendment. Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax.

Check it out: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flas...

Answer 7

It is easy. See the links below.

Yes, the 16th amendment was ratified. See the links below.

Don't believe the non-sense you saw in that film. It will land you in jail.

Answer 8

You tax deniers crack me up. The constitution doesn't say you have to anything nor does it restrict what you personally can do. It defines rights, and grants or denies the power of government and citizens to do certain things. The 16th amendment doesn't say you have to pay taxes. It says that Congress has the power to tax you. Title 26 of the US code is where it says you have to pay taxes. Congress exercised its constitutional right to lay and collect taxes when the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).

Here is what the Supreme Court has to say about your ridiculous 16th amendment argument:

“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”

U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986)

That documentary, and I use the term loosely, was an inaccurate steaming pile. Can I have my 10 points now.

Answer 9

But the 16th amendment is still in the constitution, no matter how it got there