Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: 13th Amendment bans income tax
Youtube ^ | June 27, 2010 | RidleyReport

Posted on 06/28/2010 7:49:04 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 last
To: tisket

It looks like a lot of Freepers just follow whatever neocons or people in the republican party say. They don’t see how Dr. Paul would restore true conservative values in America. They just attack the libertarian party which Dr. Paul is no longer a part of.


201 posted on 07/06/2010 3:20:18 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: tisket

Freepers are always talking about N0bama enforcing unconstitutional policies and raising taxes. So why not support the only politician willing to end these things? Wouldn’t most freepers like to see income tax abolished?


202 posted on 07/06/2010 3:32:46 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Even if it did, then the 16th amendment repealed the 13th.

Many have debated whether the 16th amendment was ever validly ratified so some might try to fall back on that argument, but I tend to agree with you that the 16th would have superseded the 13th in the realm of taxes. The argument presumes that taxation=involuntary servitude...which would mean that all taxes would be a form of involuntary servitude, and I doubt that the 16th amendment intended to abolish all taxation. However, that being said, there is also the issue that you raised about the 16th amendment superseding the 13th amendment that might be worth mentioning.

No where in the Constitution does it say that a later constitutional amendment supersedes a previous amendment. (Therefore, it is technically not a binding principle.) If an amendment does not explicitly repeal a part of the Constitution, then both contradicting clauses may be argued to be both be validly part of the Constitution. If there is a contradiction of interpretation between two parts of the constitution owing to the addition of a new amendment to the constitution, then the contradiction must be settled by the Supreme Court. But as you are aware, up to now, the Supreme Court has generally held that if there are contradicting clauses that have resulted from amending the Constitution that the most recently ratified provision prevails. However, following this principle can lead to wild judicial activism as it is not always clear whether an amendment intended to repeal certain provisions of the constitution or not. Thus amending the constitution without explicitly repealing a contradicting portion can lead to bizarre judgments by courts on what portions of the Constitution have and haven't been superseded by an amendment. Judicial activism at its finest.

203 posted on 07/11/2010 11:37:30 AM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Even if the 16th was properly ratified I do not think the 16th was morally right. Income tax as Dr. Paul points out is a violation of our individualist freedom and natural rights.

END THE FED.

204 posted on 07/15/2010 11:19:00 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson