Question for Tax Protesters

self | 6-3-02 | I.Q. Vanity

[inquest]

I've looked over some of the literature that tax protesters have put out, giving reasons why the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. Much of it seems interesting, but it leaves out what I consider to be a very important matter, which I hope somebody out there can clear up: If it can be determined with certainty that a particular law we've been observing for decades, was, in fact, not enacted in the proper legal way, what would be the proper means of handling the matter, and can you cite precedent for it?

[inquest]

I'd like to keep the thread focused on this particular question, if at all possible. Thanks in advance for your comments.

Sorry for not pinging anyone, because I haven't been on FR long enough to know who exactly the tax protesters are, but I know you're out there.

And by the way, any 14th-amendment protesters who might have anything to add would also be plenty welcome.

[PatrioticAmerican]

I believe the courts have already ruled that such a matter is for the Congress. The logic is that the courts must only respond to laws and that Congress stipulates the laws. Of course, this begs the question, "What if the Congress is out of control and making amendments to the Constitution without the proper process?"

I am afraid the only recourse is the people. The people must demand that the Constitution is followed, but what may the people do to ensure adherence to the Constitution, short of a violent revolt?

[vannrox]

CAUTION

The only way that I am aware of doing this is trough the US Spreme Court. Now, that is nearly impossible because matters related to taxiation are handled by their own court system. That being the so called "Tax Court". Sigh.


Thus, one has to proceed with caution and state while the evidence clearly (and it does clearly indicate) the illegitancy of the implemetation of the 16th Amendment, the constructs are in place to make it difficult to proceed under that knowledge. The moment that any tax document is signed, you can rest assured that it is tied towards restrictions that make you leagally liable for the tax.


For instance, many people signed up for Social Security when they were 16 years old. Not understanding that that one signature chained them to a life of witholding. And that they DID NOT need to sign up for it.


Well, based on this concept a legal challenge was brought about and, of course, went before the pervue of the Tax Court. They ruled that yes, his premise was correct, you didn't have to have a Social Security number, but that IGNORANCE is no excuse. He, at 16, has signed the necessary papers requiring his to have understood what he read. At that time, truth be told, he locked himself into a lifetime of withholding. Even though he did not read nor understand the consequences of his actions.


Likewise the pitfalls occur as a function of signing any document such as a W-2 or a W-4. The laws are so conviluted and confusing that by natural overview they MUST be illegal. Afterall, our founding fathers stated quite clearly that the simpler the law, the more Divine the outcome. Obviously, the tax code is the work of man, and is thus inherently corrupt.


The only way to change this I am afraid is to have a constitutional amendment reversing the 16th Amendment. Or, if not reversing it, then limiting it to a simpler and less expansive form.


Like it or not, we have to pay taxes. Even though the structure is corrupted beyond repair. Sorry.


The anti-tax literature has gold nuggets spread through out the mud. There is truth there. But don't get caught up in standing for your rights. I am afraid to say that chancs are that you signed your rights away long ago.

[CyberSpartacus]

You cannot sign your rights away. They are given to you by God. If you do not stand up for your rights. You are throwing away your gift from God for the poor safety provided by slavery.

[inquest]

I believe the courts have already ruled that such a matter is for the Congress.

I've heard that too, and it doesn't make any sense to me why they would rule that way. They're essentially saying, "We have no idea what to do with this, so we're passing the buck." The Constitution states pretty clearly, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...." There's nothing in the way of escape clauses there for any type of legal issue. I just don't understand how they can rationalize that stance.

I am afraid the only recourse is the people. The people must demand that the Constitution is followed, but what may the people do to ensure adherence to the Constitution, short of a violent revolt?

And before we can even ask that question, in order for the people to make that demand, the people need to know what it says. I had thought there were certain persons we pay to make that determination, but they seem to be sleeping on the job.

[Willie Green]

I'd like to keep the thread focused on this particular question, if at all possible.

Good luck. But my experience is that all tax discussions are hijacked by NRST flying monkeys.

[vannrox]

I agree with you. One cannot discard what has been given to them by Divine Providence. Afterall, the Preamble to the Bll of Rights states that so very clearly.


However, the Tax Court has ruled otherwise. And the Supreme Court or an applicable appellate court has not reviewed the case.


What am I saying? Yes, you read correctly. The Tax Court has ruled against the Bill of Rights and...there is nothing we can do about it.

[Destructor]

"Good luck. But my experience is that all tax discussions are hijacked by NRST flying monkeys."

Not to mention the Status Quo junkies!

[inquest]

Good luck. But my experience is that all tax discussions are hijacked by NRST flying monkeys.

Well, if that what it takes to jump-start things...

By the way, these NRST'ers - those are the ones who'd be arguing that the 16th's unconstitutional, right? (I'm a little new at this)

[varon]

I'm still stuck for lack of answer to a simple scenario and can't for the life of me understand why brighter minds schooled in these matters can't understand the following.

If a proposed law has not been properly/legaly enacted, then there is no law. Is my conclusion correct so far?

If there is no law, then not adhering to "it" is not a crime. Am I still on track?

If a person doesn't break a law and does not commit a crime, how can they be prosecuted, convicted and punished? However, they do!

What am I missing here?

[Willie Green]

By the way, these NRST'ers - those are the ones who'd be arguing that the 16th's unconstitutional, right? (I'm a little new at this)

They're the ones who dispense with the entire Constitution and individual property rights in order to establish a modern, two-tiered feudal system. The elite investment class are encouraged to further accumulate and concentrate wealth completely tax-free while the peon-serfs are saddled with a dibilitating 30% consumption tax on everything purchased: including food, shelter, clothing and medicines.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If a proposed law has not been properly/legaly enacted, then there is no law. Is my conclusion correct so far? If there is no law, then not adhering to "it" is not a crime. Am I still on track? If a person doesn't break a law and does not commit a crime, how can they be prosecuted, convicted and punished? However, they do!

The answer is in what is called the "enrolled bill doctrine."

Supposed you are indicted for a crime--burglary, possessing drugs, whatever--and you say "there's no law against that." The prosecutor brings out a copy of a lawbook and shows you the law. You say "the guy that published that book is a liar, Congress never passed that law." So he brings out the original copy from the National Archives, signed by the President, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. You say, "maybe they were lying. How do I know a majority of Congress really voted for that?" They bring in the Congressional Record; you deny that that's accurate. Or you claim that the Senator who cast the deciding vote wasn't validly elected.

This process could go on to infinity, which is not an efficient way to run a court system. So the English courts before 1776, and the American courts since then, have followed what's called the "enrolled bill doctrine." Once a law is published in the official compilations, courts will assume that it was validly passed. If it really wasn't, and was snuck into the official lawbooks by mistake or fraud, Congress has to complain and say "we never passed that"; the private citizen being prosecuted can't raise that issue.

The Supreme Court has applied the same rule to Constitutional Amendments: once the Secretary of State says an amendment has been ratified, that's good enough for the courts. If Congress or one of the States thinks the Secretary of State is wrong, they can object, but a private party cannot. That has been the answer the courts have given to everyone who claims the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

[agitator]

For starters, anyone who seriously questions the federal income tax, isn't a "Tax Protester." They are not questioning the validity or Constitutionality of that tax laws as written, rather they argue that they are fraudulently applied to people who they do not apply to.

I have done a number of shows on this topic, this one is with the founder of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship

Streaming Links

Windows Media version - RealPlayer version

These two are with a man who has done more research on the history of the income tax laws than anybody I know

#1

Streaming Links

Windows Media version - RealPlayer version

#2

Streaming Links

Windows Media version - RealPlayer version

In this last show, Jack Cohen identifies in the law where all of the income tax laws dealing with internal taxation were repealed in 1939 and were never replaced.

All of my shows can be found archived here:

 http://www.theotherradionetwork.com/pgs/ag-archives.htm

 

[inquest]

OK, that makes sense, to the extent that it would cover controversies over whether or not Congress or the state legislatures actually voted on a particular matter. But what if we do know what happened, but that what happened was not the proper procedure. For example, say we know that a particular amendment was proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and that it was approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. So far, it would seem like the amendment is perfectly valid. But there's a hitch. Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 3 states:

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

There is no controversy over the fact that the President did not sign the proposal before it was presented to the states - in short, there's no controversy over any of the facts of the case, but whether or not the established facts comport with the proper procedure laid out by law. So it would seem that the "enrolled bill doctrine" would not apply, wouldn't you say?

[inquest]

I apologize for pinging you despite never having actually freeped with either of you, but I noticed from doing FR searches that you two seem to be rather outspoken proponents of the view that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. I was hoping you can give me your thoughts on the question I raised here, if you don't mind. Thanks.

[inquest]

Also, I should ping you, seeing as how I was going to bring up this question on the thread you posted that was just deleted for some inexplicable reason. Even though my question was directed primarily to 16th-amendment protesters, it should concern you equally well.

[aconservaguy]

thanks. i'm not sure. i'll have to do some looking around.

[Badray]

"What am I missing here?"

Silly. Don't you know that the second law of paying the slave tax is to never use logic to refute it's legitimacy? Just shut up and pay is the first law.