16th Amendment & Other Amendment

[justalayman]

Tritium;1933110]If you had been listening, in the Federalist papers, it states a Process by which a judge would determine the validity of a law that opposes another. As they do today in the courts. That would be by using the "Rules of Construction". It's a standard practice, as I said before "LOOK IT UP!"

if you would get your head out of your ass, you would notice that again, you site a publication that does not have the force of law. The actual constitution does have the force of law so it overrides the Federalist papers, which are used to interpret the constitution. There is no legal requirement they be followed and even they are open to interpretation themselves.

Also, while we're already here, go to the congress.gov - look at what they call a proposed amendment. It's a BILL.

All legislation is presented on a BILL. A WRITTEN DOCUMENT.

here is a excerpt from www.house.gov:

Joint Resolutions
Joint resolutions may originate either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. There is little practical difference between a bill and a joint resolution. Both are subject to the same procedure, except for a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. On approval of such a resolution by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, it is sent directly to the Administrator of General Services for submission to the individual states for ratification. It is not presented to the President for approval. A joint resolution originating in the House of Representatives is designated "H.J.Res." followed by its individual number. Joint resolutions become law in the same manner as bills.

Since you want to make a claim, you need to support it. I am not going to wander all over a website looking for something you claim is there.

And how should I know what your tag line was previously? Perhaps if you had an intelligent thought worth reading, I would have noticed. But I did not.

You are showing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension again. In response to you statement that I was not an attorney, I simply said that you were ignorant because underneath every post I make, I specifically state I am not an attorney. I told you it has been such for at least a year. You somehow convolute that into I suggested you need to understand what my signature line was previously. Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of the English language.

That would be by using the "Rules of Construction". It's a standard practice, as I said before "LOOK IT UP!"

I believe you are lieing and cannot support your statement. That is why you continually direct me to LOOK IT UP. Why don;t you look it up and prove yourself right for a change.

 

[justalayman]

beyond all of that, let me comment on your actual question of who can write a bill raising taxes.


If you read A1S7, yes it does state that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Reps.

Then, go on to the 16th amendment which states:

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 biggest thing you have failed to notice, or understand is: this is not a law that raises revenue. That means it would not fall under the constraints prvided withn A1S7. What this does do is ALLOW taxes to be levied upon incomes. It does not actually raise any revenue. So, all this did was allow the House to propose law that actually did raise revenue from income.

Up to that point, the right to tax income was not universally accepted as legal. Here is some explanation to that point:

16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).

So, your arguement that the 16th is not legal due to A1S7 is not a proper arguement based upon the fact that the 16th amendment is not a law that raises taxes. It merely allows, or actually more accurately, defines the fact that income can be taxed.

So, do you have any other incorrect assumptions regarding this?

As I stated long ago, you are wrong. Beyond your incorrect arguements regarding misused terminology and other incorrect ideas, your entire position is incorrect simply because the 16th is not a law that raises revenue.

Get it yet?

 

[Tritium]

Your lack of action...

Your lack of action is enough to dismiss your objection. I have stated fact. And lack of external opposition stating otherwise proves my point for now.