Skip to comments.TODAY'S RULING UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR THE FAIRTAX! REPEAL THE 16TH AMENDMENT NOW!
Posted on 06/28/2012 10:25:00 AM PDT by Hostage
I pointed out in extensive discussions after March 21, 2010 and throughout 2011 that the democrats were following the FDR playbook on Social Security in pushing Obamacare.
I tried my best to point out that regardless of the Commerce Clause or any uniformity provisions of constitutional law, that the 16th Amendment would be used to characterize Obamacare as a tax.
Our enemy are those that impose on us and acquiesce to the 16th Amendment.
If you are for appealing the 16th Amendment, it does not mean you are a tax protester, it does not mean you are not wanting to pay your fair share of taxes, it means you are against the federal government gaining more and more power over your life.
The FairTax is a substitute tax code that operates without the 16th Amendment and is legal and constitutional under the original tax provisions of the US Constitution.
The FairTax is not an additional tax, it is not a tax on top of existing tax. It is a 'replacement' tax that replaces all the taxes currently in the supply and production chains of goods and services and bundles them all together as one retail sales tax.
The FairTax cannot coexist with an income tax and has a provision to sunset if the 16th Amendment is not repealed.
The FairTax will take power away from the ruling class to social engineer and tinker with our freedoms.
The FairTax will be easier to enforce and easier to administer.
The FairTax will boost GDP over 10% and eliminate a half trillion dollars in compliance costs to satisfy the income tax code.
The FairTax has far more sponsors in Congress than any other tax reform. The number of sponsors has recently increased.
The FairTax can be adopted by your local congressional representative if there are on average 3000 FairTax activists in your district. You need to get busy.
Sounds like you will be asleep even when your tagline is activated.
Oh it has everything to do with it. To think otherwise means you are are not informed about the tax provisions of Obamacare and you are not informed of how the taxes of Obamacare are constitutional under the 16th Amendment.
First, the Obamacare taxes are administered on IRS form 1040, the Federal Income Tax form. Everyone will be required to have their paychecks withhold an Obamacare tax that can receive a tax credit on April 15 if they can show they have a qualified health plan.
Second, there are tax provisions of Obamacare on incomes and on Employer Sponsored Health Plans which are converted to dollar compensation as income.
Third, the FairTax abolishes all Federal Income Taxation, all of it and requires the 16th Amendment to be repealed.
Fourth, under the FairTax the IRS form 1040 goes away and so do Obamacare taxes.
A convention to propose amendments has never been held, and the Constitution does not spell out procedures.
So it is at the very least premature to get all definite about how it would work.
“The states” can presumably limit the scope of what such a convention can address, but what reason do any of us have for expecting “the states” to agree on specific language for such limitation. Does such agreement by the states have to be unanimous, simple majority, 2/3 or what? If 26 states want to address X at the convention, but 24 states want to deal with Y, on what basis do you decide between them?
I would expect any such attempt to deteriorate into a mass of lawsuits.
>”A convention to propose amendments has never been held, and the Constitution does not spell out procedures.”
Not true. In 1913 there was a very large state constitutional convention movement, so large in fact that Congress acted to get take up the amendment (17th) process lest they lose face as being out of touch with the electorate.
The procedures are known and defined. There is no chance of a runaway convention. See in this thread previous posts by Publius.
34 ‘states’ (2/3s) are required to pass an amendment and 3/4s are required to ratify.
Notice the word ‘states’ in the previous sentence. It does not mean delegates or population. It means that Rhode Island and Wyoming have as much say as New York and California.
Now break out a political map of which groups control which states and you will see that Tea Party conservatives control the most ‘states’.
Next recall that in 2010 the victories of the Tea Party in Congressional elections were nothing compared to the victories of TP organizations in statehouses.
The Left fears TP conservatives at the state level and even more a movement to hold state conventions for amendments.
Actually what I said is precisely true. A convention was never held because Congress headed it off.
Now break out a political map of which groups control which states and you will see that Tea Party conservatives control the most states.
By my admittedly imprecise math there are around 20 blue states and 30 red states. That's not even a 2/3, much less 3/4, majority.
Actually, there are probably more like 25 red states, 15 blue states and 10 purple states.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Congress feared that an Amendments Convention addressing the issue of direct election of senators would write an amendment that would require the election of the full Senate all at once, on a one-time basis, under the new paradigm. The Senate wrote the 17th Amendment on a phased-in basis, where each of the three classes of senators would be elected under the new paradigm over the next three electoral cycles. The House piled on. This was the version that went to the states for ratification. Then Congress subtracted the petitions from states that used the language I enumerated in a previous post and thus avoided calling an Amendments Convention to address this topic.
The procedures are known and defined.
Sort of. The document from that website is in disagreement with the American Bar Association's 1973 report, which is why there are gray areas. But 90% of that document agrees with the ABA report.
There is no chance of a runaway convention.
Sort of. Both the document from the website and the ABA report agree that the states define the purview of an Amendments Convention via the language of their petitions to Congress. The question is the enforcement procedure. The website document makes an invalid assumption about that, handing it off to the Supreme Court. The ABA report states straightforwardly that the only enforcement proedure is the fact that three fourths of the states are needed to ratify the product of a "runaway" convention.
It does not mean delegates or population. It means that Rhode Island and Wyoming have as much say as New York and California.
Not necesarily. The website document takes this position, but this is an unwarranted assumption. The author noted that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was based on "one state/one vote". But that was under the Articles of Confederation. The ABA report argues that Reynolds v. Sims, aka "one man/one vote", would apply to an Amendments Convention. The ABA suggested that an Amendments Convention should consist of 435 delegates, with each delegate elected by each congressional district.
I should note that the ABA report identified all gray areas connected with the amendatory process and suggested laws that Congress should pass to turn those gray areas into black and white.
>”Actually what I said is precisely true. A convention was never held because Congress headed it off.”
It was I that pointed out to you that Congress headed off the state conventions because they feared a loss of control. But you are still imprecise. In the post I responded to you said:
>A convention to propose amendments has never been held, and the Constitution does not spell out procedures.
A states convention process to propose amendments was certainly in work but never finalized passage of amendments because the convention activity of the states shocked Congress into acting.
>”By my admittedly imprecise math there are around 20 blue states and 30 red states. That’s not even a 2/3, much less 3/4, majority.”
Yes, I agree you are imprecise but not only imprecise but also inaccurate. In 2010, republicans with heavy surges of Tea Party support won the most statehouses in history:
The 2010 elections were a referendum on profligate spending AND OBAMACARE.
In 2012, the 70 million people that supported the Tea Party will be galvanized against the implementation of Obamacare.
This is the time to call for state constitutional conventions. They may need only go so far as to force Congress to act.
The first order of business should be to repeal the 16th Amendment and to enact the FairTax tax code.
Obamacare has been been more than 75 years in the making. Obamacare was spawned by FDR socialists in the 1930s and was taken off the table as being premature. Socialists have Obamacare as a stated goal since the New Deal. And there is more. Once Obamacare has control of the USA healthcare, the socialists will move to curtail you freedom to travel, to associate, to speak and to arm yourself.
>”It does not mean delegates or population. It means that Rhode Island and Wyoming have as much say as New York and California.”
>”Not necesarily. The website document takes this position, but this is an unwarranted assumption. The author noted that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was based on “one state/one vote”. But that was under the Articles of Confederation. The ABA report argues that Reynolds v. Sims, aka “one man/one vote”, would apply to an Amendments Convention. The ABA suggested that an Amendments Convention should consist of 435 delegates, with each delegate elected by each congressional district.”
A state convention process that acts as ‘one state/one vote’ is a republican process that serves to protect states from central control imposed by the larger states such as New York and California.
A state convention process that acts as a ‘one man/one vote’ is a democratic process that leads to mob rule and statism by imposing on diverse states a code of governance that stems from majorities residing in the larger states.
I would fight for the one state/one vote process. The original constitutionalists had it right. They knew the perils of mob rule that is brought about by democracy.
Elections are democratic but governance is republican where Rez Publica connotes “Rule of Law”.
I would rather be subject to a rule of law state than one driven by a mob. But of course I would prefer elections to be democratic.
How can I say this delicately. The convention was not held. As I said. The process to call a convention was started.
But the convention was never held.
If I start on a trip to Denver, but don’t arrive, I did not go to Denver.
On January 10, 2008, the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a permanent injunction against Bill Benson on the grounds that by offering information demonstrating that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, he was promoting an abusive tax shelter. The Court then refused to look at the government-certified documentary evidence, deciding instead that the facts necessary to prove his statements true were “irrelevant.”
What has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law?
. . .
Watch the Benson Video
The federal government rests its authority to collect income tax on the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionthe federal income tax amendmentwhich was allegedly ratified in 1913.
“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.”
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
After an extensive year-long nationwide research project, William J. Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states and that nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification.
It was a shocking revelation; it reached deep to the core of our American system of government.
Enough already of your nonsense. The fact is that Americans of 1913 started the process and knew how to organize themselves at the state level. The fact is they got to their target by having Congress drive them there.
The fact is that state convention organizing has precedent and can be done again.
It is not that difficult for state political organizations to organize conventions at their state level and coordinate a national referendum on various issues culminating in passage of amendments. It is likely Congress will be spurred to act before such conventions are held.
Not really relevant now. Benson was promoting an illegal or abusive tax shelter without first settling his case of ratification. Such people are known as tax protesters.
We are not tax protesters here. If the 16th Amendment worked to fund a government that could safeguard our freedom, then there would be no reason to call for its repeal.
But the 16th Amendment was used today to call Obamacare a ‘tax’, more specifically an income tax where healthcare plan premiums paid by employers are considered ‘taxable income’.
Thus, the 16th amendment is used for political purposes in social engineering and statism, not for the purposes of limited government.
The 16th amendment is an artifact of an era of class warfare, a relic of a time in which socialism was a novelty and had not been time tested.
In the 1930s, FDR faced the same constitutional issues as Obamacare for his government administered ‘old age annuity program’, today known as Social Security. He quickly had his lawyers in court change Social Security to a Social Security tax even though the premiums paid to the Social Security fund were not supposed to be a tax. FDR knew his lawyers could define any benefit as ‘income’ and therefore be taxable. It worked.
Today’s democrats used, and admitted they used the FDR playbook.
One irritating fact is that FDR’s New Deal had a national healthplan in work as part of all his ‘reforms’ but this was taken off the table for ‘later’. More than 75 years later the democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats and then switched to call it a tax in court just as FDR had done.
I saw all this coming in 2010 and wrote about it here voluminously. I cautioned people not to be drawn into the commerce clause arguments, the individual mandate distraction. I saw the democrats were using, I saw them admit they were using the FDR playbook.
The 1913 16th Amendment does not work for us. The FairTax code is a vastly superior form of federal taxation that conforms with the original tax provisions of the US Constitution.
I don’t care about Benson “Supposed” tax fraud scheme.
I care about the facts from all 48 States that never ratified the 16th amendment.
Beside, is it tax fraud if the law was never ratified???
#6: Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?
Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.
That so-called amendment allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).
The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVITs that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the truth of the case. The so-called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.
Read the rest here: