Posted on 12/05/2010 9:52:00 AM PST by GrassRoots1773
Please type out the questioner’s hint to Miss O’Donnell and compare it to what you typed. You again misrepresent.
That I am not a hypocrite who lets a grifter or liar get by just because he or she claims to be conservative. That I am smart enough to know that attacking liberals on a conservative website is like trying to gather up ice cubes in the desert. That your attempts to track my every move have failed. That I am forsighted enough to realize that we need to get good conservative candidates into the general election, not dishonest dingbats.
What does it say about you that you misrepresent, misquote, and otherwise distort so many things? Why are you so afraid of the truth, except that it doesn't support your claims?
I mentioned income tax. I am sorry that I can't read it to you since you can't seem to read, yourself. Please ask someone to help you next time before writing back with irrelevant comments.
The sixteenth didn't give Congress the power for income tax, either. She was WRONG.
It's about apportionment and direct/indirect taxation. If the sixteenth were repealed, Congress would still retain the ability to tax income. The tax code would require modification, but it is still there.
Miss O'Donnell claims to be a qualified for one of the top positions in the nation and she'd be sitting there with a dumb look not knowing what was being discussed when "16th Amendment" was mentioned. I suppose she could interrupt and ask other members of the committee, "What are we talking about?"
It wouldn't bother me so much except that she insisted on being such an idiot about how she presented her ignorance. And it bothers me less than her dishonesty. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant to being a senator!
Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.
Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!
Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.
Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!
Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.
Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!
Note to readers...notice how Moseley posts something that backs my point entirely, yet tries to claim it supports Miss O’Donnell’s wrong response.
Don’t overlook “direct” and “unapportioned”...if it were just “income tax,” as Miss O’Donnell claimed, then there would be no need for those adjectives!
No, we were too busy laughing at you and seeing you go down in flames to notice that.
The 16th Amendment ist he constitutional basis of the income tax.
While an income tax was previously attempted, its constitutionality was doubtful, which is the reason why the 16th amendment was enacted.
Even today, people cahllenge the validity of the income tax based on their theory that the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified by the States.
If you want to spin some kook theory, go ahead. But trying to claim that Christine can’t run circles around you on the US Constitution is a different story.
Read the Constitution. Note that it gives Congress the power of taxation, but notes that direct taxation must be population-apportioned. Note that Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. found that property-based taxes were direct--and, therefore, had to be apportioned. But the Sixteenth Amendment allowed the Federal government to tax income regardless of source--not just indirect--without apportionment.
Even today, people cahllenge the validity of the income tax based on their theory that the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified by the States.
The current income tax includes various manners of income. Therefore, it requires the 16th Amendment to stand. But that doesn't mean all forms of income tax would be eliminated by the Sixteenth Amendment.
If you want to spin some kook theory, go ahead. But trying to claim that Christine can’t run circles around you on the US Constitution is a different story.
Oh, she runs in circles, alright!
Funny how the "kook theory" is the prevailing one. You might not be able to understand the difference between direct and indirect sources of income, and their differences under the pre-16th Constitution, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
In fact, your argument is exactly what was shot downby the Supreme Court of the US in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), which lays out clearly that the power of income taxation was there in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, but that sixteenth amendment simply removed the requirement to apportion it, the extent that it was a direct tax, amongst the states (as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, for direct taxes. Indirect wage income was free from apportionment requirements even without the sixteenth, but some other classes of income were not, as they were considered direct.
If Miss O'Donnell is going to claim that Chris Coons was wrong on the First Amendment because he slightly paraphrased without substantially changing the meaning, she must accept that she's either wrong on the 16th (by claiming she was paraphrasing and not being technically correct) or a hypocrite (by saying it's okay to ignore her error but not his). Either way is untenable.
I'd rather have a senator who knows what she's talking about.
I am claiming that EVERYONE with a brain and every legal and constitutional scholar agrees that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to levy income taxes.
Your opinion to the contrary is not relevant.
You are a nut and a kook, and the fact that people don’t agree with your theory of the 16th Amendment is your problem, not Christine O’Donnell’s.
While some suggested that income taxes could be levied before the 16th Amendment, this was disputed and hotly in doubt. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to ensure that the US Congress had the power to levy income taxes.
Christine O’Donnell was and is 100% correct on the US Constitution, whereas you are a kook.
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.