• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

The Supreme Law of the Land

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
The entire purpose of an amendment is to change the Constitution.

The 16th amendment was ratified by 42 states, more than enough to make it valid. So in what way is that not the vote of the people?
 


Tritium

Member
The entire purpose of an amendment is to change the Constitution.

The 16th amendment was ratified by 42 states, more than enough to make it valid. So in what way is that not the vote of the people?
Actually, when the Proposed Amendment passed the house and senate, it passed with a Quorum Present. 2/3's of that Quorum doesn't constitution 2/3's of both houses.

Besides that, the 16th Amendment would have had to have been to fix a flaw in the Constitution. The purpose of limiting the federal taxing power was in order to protect the people from the same oppressive powers the Colonies had a revolution against. All the taxes are collected in order to protect our 'interests' overseas. It was the Taxation Americans were being forced to pay to recover from the French & Indian war...

Regardless of all this, the restriction was not a flaw, it was a power specifically withheld from government by the people. If the Restriction is withheld by the people, then only the people can delegate that authority. If "We the People" represented by conventions and the states, represented by those elected by the people, signed a document restricting such a power, both is necessary to remove such a power. Consent was not received by the people.

Additionally... A direct tax as referenced in the Constitution can't be put on an object like wages... such would be an indirect tax, as stated by the supreme court in the late 1800's. A direct tax is a tax upon the taxpayer (which is the state itself, not the people, according to the constitution) apportioned by the population contained in it. How in the world is it possible that it could imply a tax upon an individual?

Just as england was raising money in order to make up for it's losses... Like the banks are doing now to pay back the taxpayers... The Federal Government is trying to sustain wasteful spending, and preferential treatment.

The amendment can only fix an error... and the 16th amendment only fixes congress to the upper class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top