Obey the law or uphold the Constitution? Choose you this day

Post Reply
User avatar
CHH
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:27 pm
Location: Nevada

Obey the law or uphold the Constitution? Choose you this day

Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:04 am

1. The IRS says it is the 16th Amendment that gives it the authority to impose the income tax directly on the working people of America.(See IRS Publication No. 1918 (July, 96), Cat. No. 22524B ;"The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution states that citizens are required to file tax returns and pay taxes.")
2. The New York Times says the 16th Amendment is the government’s authority to impose the income tax directly on the working people of America. (See The New York Times Almanac, 2001, The World’s Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac, page 161: "Congress’s right to levy taxes on the income of individuals and corporations was contested throughout the 19th century, but that authority was written into the Constitution with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913.")
3. The federal courts have said the 16th Amendment is the government’s authority to impose the income tax directly on the working people of America. (See United States of America vs. Jerome David Pederson, (1985) Case No. CR-84-57-GF: Judge Paul G. Hatfield (United States District Court For The District of Montana) wrote: "The income tax laws of the United States of America are constitutional, having been validly enacted under authority of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.") (See United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir. 1982): the court declared: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed any need to apportion income taxes among the states that otherwise would have been required by Article I, Section 9, clause 4.")
4. Findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a compelling case that the 16th Amendment (the "income tax amendment") was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud (an invidious and covert act) when he declared it ratified in February 1913. (See "The Law That Never Was," by Bill Benson and Red Beckman.)
5. The U.S. Court of Appeals, in U.S. v. Stahl (1986), 792 F2d 1438, ruled that the claim that ratification of the 16th Amendment was a fraudulently certified was a political question for Congress to decide because the court could not reach the merits of the claim without expressing a lack of respect due the Congress and the Executive branches of the government. (See U.S. v. Stahl , 792 F2d 1438 )
6. In 1985, the Congressional Research Service issued a Report, at the request of Congressmen, to address the claim by Bill Benson that the 16th Amendment was a fraud. (See "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment," by John Ripy, Esq, CRS 1985, the "Ripy Report").
7. The Ripy Report was very specific in its declaration that it was not going to address the specific factual allegations detailed in Benson’s book, "The Law That Never Was."
8. The Ripy Report then went on to assert that the actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and cannot be judged or overturned by the courts.
9. When it comes to amending the Constitution the government appears to do whatever it wants to do, making up the rules regarding the ratification process as it goes along, while ignoring the spirit, if not the letter, of Article V of the Constitution.
10. This is an invidious and or covert act by the government to establish the religion of socialism/fascism/Marxism/Maoism etc.
11. Such an act by the Government in which the Constitution would be amended without the properly outlined procedures be followed EXACTLY cannot have a compelling government interest and therefore such a alleged ratification would be in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and could not meet the least restrictive clause of the RFRA and therefore any tax that was so imposed could not be imposed upon me or those that have my same beliefs.
12. The 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and that the states were allowed 202 years within which to have 3/4th of the states ratify it, with Maryland ratifying it on December 19, 1789 and New Jersey on 1992 (See 57 FR 21187.) (See Annotations, 27th Amendment.)
13. In 1921, in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375, the Supreme Court concluded:
We do not find anything in the article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the states may be separated from that in others by many years and yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefore that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. These considerations and the general purport and spirit of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed today has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of today, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal.
14. The date of September 25, 1789, when the 27th Amendment was first proposed, is "widely separated in time" from the date of March 6, 1978, when Wyoming ratified this amendment. (See Annotations, 27th Amendment.)
15. Pursuant to the United States Constitution, Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes. (See U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 2, clause 3; U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 8, clause 1; U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 9, clause 4.)
16. The constitutionality of the 1894 income tax act was in question in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and that in this case, the Supreme Court found that Congress could tax real and personal property only by means of an apportioned, direct tax. Finding that the income from real and personal property was part of the property itself, the Court concluded in this case that a federal income tax could tax such income only by means of an apportioned tax. Further finding that as this particular tax was not apportioned, it was unconstitutional. (See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).)
17. For Congress to tax today real or personal property, the tax would have to be apportioned among the states. (See U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 9, clause 4)
18. For Congress to tax income from real and personal property without the authority of the 16th Amendment, such taxes would have to be apportioned among the states. (See U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 9, Clause 4)
19. In 1913, the following law, Revised Statutes 205, was in effect: "Sec. 205. Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States." (See R.S. Section 205.)
20. Revised Statutes Section 205 provided that "official notice" of a State’s ratification of an amendment must be received at the State Department. (See R.S. Section 205)
21. On or about July 31, 1909, Senate Joint Resolution 40 proposing the ratification of the 16th Amendment was deposited with the Department of State and the same was published at 36 Stat. 184, and that this resolution read as follows: SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.
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 20 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."
J.C. CANNON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
J.S. SHERMAN, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. (See SJ 40, 36 Stat. 184.)

22. On July 27, 1909, the same Congress adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which read as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine, respecting the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.
Attest: Charles G. Bennett Secretary of the Senate
A. McDowell Clerk of the House of Representatives (See Concurrent Resolution)
23. Not only did this resolution request that certified copies of favorable State ratification resolutions be sent to Washington, D.C., the States were expressly informed to do so by Secretary of State Philander Knox, who sent the following "form" letter to the governors of the 48 States then in the Union:
"Sir:
"I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a Resolution of Congress, entitled 'Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,' with there quest that you cause the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your State for such action as may be had, and that a certified copy of such action be communicated to the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States. An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, P.C. Knox" In 1909, there were 48 states and that three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. (See Knox’s Proclamation)
24. Philander Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, naming the following 38 states as having approved it: Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Maine, Tennessee, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New York, South Dakota, Arizona, Minnesota, Louisiana, Delaware, Wyoming, New Jersey and New Mexico. (See Knox’s Proclamation)
25. When California provided uncertified copies of its resolution to Secretary of State Philander Knox, Knox wrote the following to California Secretary of State Frank Jordan: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, transmitting a copy of the Joint Resolution of the California Legislature ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in reply thereto I have to request that you furnish a certified copy of the Resolution under the seal of the State, which is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States".(See Letter from Knox to Jordan.)
26. When Wyoming Governor Joseph Carey telegraphed Philander Knox news that the Wyoming legislature had ratified the 16th Amendment on February 3, 1913, Philander Knox telegraphed in return as follows: "Replying to your telegram of 3rd you are requested to furnish a certified copy of Wyoming’s ratification of Income Tax Amendment so there may be no question as to the compliance with Section 205 of Revised Statutes."(See Letter from Knox to Carey)
27. On February 15, 1913, a State department attorney, J. Rueben Clarke, informed Secretary of State Philander Knox, in reference to the State of Minnesota, "the secretary of the Governor merely informed the Department that the state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment." (See Rueben Clarke Memo)
28. In the official records deposited in the Archives of the United States, there is no certified copy of the resolution of the Minnesota legislature ratifying the 16th Amendment. (See National Book of state ratification documents: Minnesota)
29. In the documents possessed by the Archives of the United States, there are no certified copies of the resolutions ratifying the 16th Amendment by California and Kentucky. (See National Book of state ratification documents: California and Kentucky)
30. The Kentucky Senate voted 22 to 9 against ratification of the 16th Amendment. (See Kentucky Senate Journal)
31. Mr. John Ashcroft was the Attorney General of the United States.
32. When Mr. Ashcroft was Governor of Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court rendered the following decision in a case involving Mr. Ashcroft, that case being Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985), where the Missouri Supreme Court held:
The senate and the house must agree on the exact text of any bill before they may send it to the governor. There may not be the slightest variance. The exact bill passed by the houses must be presented to and signed by the governor before it may become law (laying aside as not presently material alternative procedure by which a bill may become law without the governor's signature.) The governor has no authority to sign into law a bill which varies in any respect from the bill passed by the houses. [See Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985)]
33. During hearings regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment in Massachusetts, Mr. Robert Luce made the following statement to the Massachusetts Committee on Federal Relations: "Question by the committee: Are we able to change it? Mr. Luce: No, you must either accept or reject it." (See "The Law That Never Was," by Bill Benson: Statement by Luce to Committee of Federal Relations.)
34. On February 11, 1910, Kentucky Governor Augustus Wilson wrote a letter to the Kentucky House of Representatives wherein he stated as follows:
This resolution was adopted without jurisdiction of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States which had not been transmitted to and was not before the General Assembly, and in this resolution the words "on incomes" were left out of the resolution of the Congress, and if transmitted in this form would be void and would subject the Commonwealth to unpleasant comment and for these reasons and because a later resolution correcting the omission is reported to have passed both Houses, this resolution is returned to the House of Representatives without my approval. (See Letter from Kentucky Governor Wilson to Kentucky House of Rep.)
35. No State may change the wording of an amendment proposed by Congress. (See "How Our Laws Are Made") (See Letter from Senator Hollings )
36. On February 15, 1913, J. Reuben Clarke, an attorney employed by the Department of State, drafted a memorandum to Secretary Knox wherein the following statements were made: "The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording" (page 7). "Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment." (See Rueben Clarke Memo.)
37. The Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows: "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." (See U.S. Const. amend XVI.)
38. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "Article 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and from any census or enumeration." (See Oklahoma’s Resolution)
39. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "Article XVI. 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 census enumeration." (See California’s Resolution)
40. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "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 renumeration." (See Illinois’ Resolution)
41. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." (See National Book of State Ratification Documents: (Kentucky)
42. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "The Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever sources derived without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, which amendment was approved on the ---- day of July, 1909." (See Georgia’s Resolution)
43. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "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 of enumeration." (See Mississippi’s Resolution)
44. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, with-out apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration:" (See Idaho’s Resolution)
45. The Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "Article XVI. The congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and did submit the same to the legislatures of the several states for ratification;" (See Missouri’s Resolution)
46. State officials who prepare and send "official notice" of ratification of constitutional amendments to federal officials in Washington, D.C., do not have any authority to change the wording of the ratification resolution actually adopted by the State legislature.(See "How Our Laws Are Made.")
47. The following states were included on Knox’s list of 38 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. (See Knox’s Proclamation)
48. The proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment was never properly and legally approved by the Georgia State Senate. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 81-88). The actions taken by the state legislatures of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, in acting on the proposed 16th Amendment, were violative of certain provisions of their state constitutions, which were in effect AND CONTROLLING at the time those states purportedly ratified the 16th Amendment. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume 1)
49. The state of Tennessee violated Article II, Section 32 of the Tennessee Constitution by denying the people an opportunity to vote for their state legislators between the time the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was submitted to the Tennessee legislature and the time the legislature voted to approve the amendment. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 213 -217)
50. The state legislature of Tennessee violated Article II, Section 18 of the Tennessee Constitution by failing to read (and pass), on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 213 - 217)
51. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Tennessee state legislature violated Article II, Sections 28 and 29 of the Tennessee Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose an income tax on the people of Tennessee. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 213 -217)
52. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Arizona state legislature violated Article IX, Section 9 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Arizona unless the amount of the tax was fixed in the bill. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 243-250)
53. The state Senate of Arizona violated Article IV, Part 2, Section 12 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 243-250)
54. The presiding officer of the state Senate of Arizona violated Article IV, Part 2, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to sign, in open session, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 243 - 250)
55. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Arkansas state legislature violated Article XVI, Section 11 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Arkansas, unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under that bill would be applied. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 219 -225) (Ex. 048l).
56. The state Senate of Arkansas violated Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 219 -225)
57. After the Governor vetoed the bill approving the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment the Arkansas state legislature did not take the matter up again. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 219 -225)
58. The state Senate of California violated Article 4, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 119 -123)
59. The state Assembly of California violated Article 4, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to record the Yeas and Nays on the vote on the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Vol, I, pages 119-123)
60. The Senate and the House of the Colorado legislature violated Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 167 -172) 25
61. The state Senate of Idaho violated Article III, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to read, section by section, just prior to the vote, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 101-105)
62. The state legislature of Idaho violated Article VI, Section 10 of the State Constitution by failing to send to the Governor the "approved" bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 101 -105)
63. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Illinois state Senate violated Article IV, Section 13 of the State Constitution, by failing to print the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment before the final vote was taken and by failing to read the bill on three different days. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 51-53) (Ex. 048p )
64. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Kansas state legislature violated Article 11, Section 205 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Kansas, unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under that bill would be applied. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 161 -166)
65. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Kansas state Senate violated Article 2, Section 128 of the State Constitution, by failing to record the vote on the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 161 -166)
66. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Kansas state House of Representatives violated Article 2, Section 133 of the State Constitution, by failing to read, section by section, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 161-166)
67. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Louisiana state legislature violated Articles 224 and 227 of the Louisiana Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose a federal income tax on the people of Louisiana (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 257-260)
68. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Michigan state legislature violated Article X, Section 6 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Michigan unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under that bill would be applied. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 179 -183)
69. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Mississippi state House of Representatives violated Article IV, Section 59 of the State Constitution, by failing to read, three times on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 55-60)
70. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Mississippi state Senate violated Article IV, Section 59 of the State Constitution, by failing to read the bill, in full, immediately before the vote on its final passage. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 55-60)
71. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Missouri state legislature violated Article X, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose a federal income tax on the people of Missouri (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 191-194)
72. The Missouri state legislature violated Article V, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution, which required the legislature to submit to the governor, the bill "approving" the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 191-194) 26
73. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Montana state House of Representatives violated Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution by failing to print the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prior to the vote on its passage. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 125-131)
74. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the presiding officer of the Montana state Senate violated Article V, Section 27 of the State Constitution by failing to publicly read, in open session, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, just prior to signing the bill. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 125 -131)
75. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the New Mexico state legislature (both the Senate and the House), violated Article IV, Section 20 of the State Constitution requiring enrollment and engrossment, public reading in full, signing by the presiding officers and the recording of all those acts in the journals. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 279 -282)
76. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the New Mexico state House of Representatives violated Article IV, Section 15 of the State Constitution, by failing to read, three times on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 279 -282)
77. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the North Dakota state legislature (both the Senate and the House), violated the Article II, Section 64 of the State Constitution, which requires re-enactment and publication of amendments. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 173-178)
78. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the North Dakota state legislature (both the Senate and the House), violated the Article II, Section 63 of the State Constitution, which required three readings of the bill, at length, on three separate days, (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 173 -178)
79. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Texas House of Representatives violated Article III, Section 37 of the State Constitution by voting on the bill before the bill was reported out of a Committee. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89-96) 80.
80. In voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Texas state legislature violated Article III, Section 48 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose a federal income tax on the people of Texas (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89 -96)
81. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the presiding officer of the Texas Senate violated Article III, Section 38 of the State Constitution by failing to publicly read, in open session, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, just prior to signing the bill. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89-96)
82. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Texas state legislature violated Article III, Section 33 of the State Constitution, which required the House to act first on all money bills. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 89-96)
83. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Washington state legislature violated Article VII, Section 2 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from imposing a tax upon the people of the state unless the tax was a uniform and equal rate of taxation. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 113 -118)
84. The Washington state legislature violated Articles III, Section 12 of the Washington Constitution, which required the legislature to submit to the governor, the bill "approving" the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 113 -118)
85. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Wyoming state legislature violated Article XV, Section 13 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Wyoming unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under that bill would be applied. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 265-271)
86. In voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Wyoming state legislature violated Article III, Section 20 of the State Constitution, by voting only on the title of the bill. (See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 265-271)
87. All of these acts by the states help to demonstrate my belief that the Income Tax Amendment was never passed and therefore if I were to sign an Income Tax 1040 or similar form I would be committing perjury.
88. All of these acts help to demonstrate my belief that the Income Tax Amendment is a part of an invidious and/or covert plan to harm my religious beliefs and establish a secular/civic/civil/socialist religion.

Advertisements & Sponsored Links


User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16313
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: Utah County

Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:26 am

The IRS lies. The 16th amendment was never properly ratified as it was done so fraudulently so that a conglomerate of bankers could enrich themselves at our expense through an income tax that was only meant to be on corporate gains and profits. The income tax on the labor of the American people is arguably the most cleverly disguised form of thievery ever perpetrated upon a people of a nation!

Post Reply

LDSFF 2018 Beta

This theme is intended to be the new more mobile-friendly design for ldsfreedomforum.com. I would appreciate your feedback as you try it out.

Stand Up For Freedom - Ezra Taft BensonStand Up For Freedom is a compilation of the best Liberty related speeches from Ezra Taft Benson.

Purchase today at: Amazon or LDS Freedom Books