The 16th Amendment Bill Benson and Ron Paul

[JustAsh]

What is the name of your state? New Hampshire

The following was taken from [url]http://jeffdickstein.com/[/url] the site of Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law:
----------------------------------------------
Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment, which was then sent to the states for ratification by Secretary of State Knox. Certificates of Ratification were sent back to Knox, but the language on the certificates differed from the 16th Amendment language passed by Congress. Knox sent the certificates to the Solicitor of the United States and asked for a legal opinion as to whether the states had ratified the proposed Sixteenth Amendment.

The Solicitor noted the differences between what Congress proposed and the states ratified, and presumed, that because states do not have the authority to alter a proposed Constitutional amendment, that none did. He concluded, therefore, that the differences in language were nothing more than minor clerical errors in the preparation of the Certificates of Ratification. Knox then declared the 16th Amendment had been ratified.

The legislative journals conclusively establish, that despite not having the power to do so, several states intentionally modified the language of the proposed amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------
My question is:

How common is it for the Secretary and Solicitor to ignore differences in language on certificates of ratification during the amendment process? Is this common practice or was this wrongdoing? Should Income tax payers be concerned about motivations of these men if it was wrongdoing? This has everything to do with Ron Paul and the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act. H.R. 2755 / Abolition of income tax: H.J.Res. 23 . That is the abolition of all the accomplishments of the banking cartel in 1913.

[Some Random Guy]

Not this tired old argument again. So they capitalized a word that they should not have, so they used a seimcolon insteda of a comma. Its been ratified.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Sixteenth_Amendment_ratification_arguments[/url]

read this part:

taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

[HomeGuru]

Boring**************.....

[JustAsh]

Wikipedia says the enrolled bill doctrine holds any bill that has the correct signatures on it is the law. If the right guys put their name on it does not remove the prerequisite of that constitutional amendment to be ratified by three fourths of the states legislatures.

The state legislative journals Bill Benson attained as certified admissible evidence show that Oklahoma, Missouri and Washington INTENDED to change the wording of the amendment. There where over 150 errors in the ratification resolutions from the states.

I read in Joseph Banisters Preliminary Report that it is the duty of the General Services Administration to ensure the valid procedure of amending the constitution. Was secretary Knox supposed to inform GSA of the alterations to most of the state joint resolutions? What is GSA’s role in ensuring ethically proper amendments? Was there supposed to be an investigation?

[tranquility]

And yet, I am firmly convinced I have to pay taxes. As do you. I've seen the government come to businesses and open up their mail and take any checks coming in to pay the tax debt. I've seen people's bank accounts suddenly become empty when the government steps in to take it for unpaid taxes. Once, I've even seen armed men come into an office I was sitting in and take the person I was talking to away in handcuffs because he also thought he didn't need to pay taxes.

In each one of those times, and many more, what do you think would have changed if the people were to have yelled "the 16th amendment wasn't ratified!"? Nothing, not a darn thing. Every court in the land agrees. So what was the point again? Oh, yeah. Not ratified. At: [url]http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/admendment_claims.htm#notRatified[/url]

This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.

The Truth:

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

Relevant Case Law:

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - the court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.

United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - the court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by JustAsh

Wikipedia says the enrolled bill doctrine holds any bill that has the correct signatures on it is the law. If the right guys put their name on it does not remove the prerequisite of that constitutional amendment to be ratified by three fourths of the states legislatures.

The state legislative journals Bill Benson attained as certified admissible evidence show that Oklahoma, Missouri and Washington INTENDED to change the wording of the amendment. There where over 150 errors in the ratification resolutions from the states.

I read in Joseph Banisters Preliminary Report that it is the duty of the General Services Administration to ensure the valid procedure of amending the constitution. Was secretary Knox supposed to inform GSA of the alterations to most of the state joint resolutions? What is GSA’s role in ensuring ethically proper amendments? Was there supposed to be an investigation?

West Virginia is not really a state.

Neither is Missouri or Kentucky.

[Some Random Guy]

West Virginia is not really a state.

Neither is Missouri or Kentucky.

Yep, they are third world countries that just happen to accept american dollars as their local currency.

[anteater]

Originally Posted by JustAsh

I read in Joseph Banisters Preliminary Report that it is the duty of the General Services Administration to ensure the valid procedure of amending the constitution. Was secretary Knox supposed to inform GSA of the alterations to most of the state joint resolutions? What is GSA’s role in ensuring ethically proper amendments? Was there supposed to be an investigation?

Leave aside the gibberish about the GSA and consitutional amendments... You do realize that the GSA was only established in 1949? Don't you?

[Karie88]

Quote:
West Virginia is not really a state.

Neither is Missouri or Kentucky.

Yep, they are third world countries that just happen to accept american dollars as their local currency.

In America, one would hope that with all the information publically accessible, there would be fewer ignorant *******s. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In saying that these said states are beneath the others is not proving any logical point, but gives way to a much deeper one. Uneducated people, such as yourselves, should do more listening and observation as a whole; instead of opening your mouths. That is one of the biggest problems in America today. The most opinionated people have no original thoughts, consult no reliable source for their information, and are really doing nothing more than making noise.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Karie88

The most opinionated people have no original thoughts, consult no reliable source for their information, and are really doing nothing more than making noise.

You lead by example

[jdlaw]

Originally Posted by Some Random Guy

Not this tired old argument again. So they capitalized a word that they should not have, so they used a seimcolon insteda of a comma. Its been ratified.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Sixteenth_Amendment_ratification_arguments[/url]

read this part:

Several States intentionally amended the language proposed by Congress. These intentional amendments violate Art. V of the Constitution of the United States of America. Such was specifically recognized by the Solicitor of the United States from whom Secretary of State Knox sought a legal opinion:

"In no case has any legislature signified in any way its deliberate intention to change the wording of the proposed amendment. The errors appear in most cases to have been merely typographical and incident to an attempt to make an accurate quotation.

Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment."

When the number of states who intentionally amended the language of the proposed Sixteenth Amendment are subtracted from the count, less than the mandated 3/4th's of the states voted for ratification.

The federal government has no authority to rely on presumptions to circumvent the facts when the issue involves the amendment of the very document that limits the government's inherent authority to act.

You will not find a single court case that has ever considered the fact that several states intentionally amended the proposed language. All you will find are court cases in which the courts have refused to review the issue. When political determinations of those in power are used in place of Constitutionally legal determinations, you have the very definition of tyranny.

Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law

[seniorjudge]

[url]http://www.middleeast.org/forum/fb-public/1/4870.shtml[/url]

Ron Paul...the guy who thinks Jews bombed the World Trade Center.

[tranquility]

I take it the permanent injunction is not against you as well?

[anteater]

You will not find a single court case that has ever considered the fact that several states intentionally amended the proposed language. All you will find are court cases in which the courts have refused to review the issue. When political determinations of those in power are used in place of Constitutionally legal determinations, you have the very definition of tyranny.

Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law

Wow! This little corner of the interent graced by a drive-by from the mouthpiece of the Kooks! Can I have your autograph?

[tranquility]

I'm not sure he will return. His client has a permanent injunction against him for spouting such things. I don't know if the court would be too keen on him doing much the same thing.