Constitution for the United States of America, Section 8 - Page 2

Goldenboy219 · 10-31-07, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Unfortunately, he's right and you're wrong.

Unfortunately, all taxes on the individual were taxes based on appropriation and enumeration. The 16th amendment is what allowed income tax as we see it now...

Quote:

Wrong. Federal income taxes did exist before the ratification of the 16th amendment - they were just subject to more stringent regulation in that they were considered excise taxes and were treated differently based on how the income was earned. The 16th amendment simply removed those restrictions and allowed the government more leeway in shaping tax policy. See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan for a discussion of how the federal income tax was handled pre-1895.

Whats up with this wiki argument of yours??? Am i wrong, or did the OP say something along the lines of:

Quote:

Do you think current federal taxation code complies with this article of the constitution?

??????

Previously to 1913, they didnt tax a persons income as they did now. That was the OP's actual question, not whether income tax in any form under any premise existed. Try and stay on topic...

Quote:

This is also completely false. It's a conspiracy theory spouted by tax protesters who don't know what they're talking about and has no basis in reality.

It is actually true that the ratification of this amendment was obtained in multiple unconstitutional ways.

Quote:

If by "bounced back between Congress and SCOTUS" you mean completely ignored by the court system and unaddressed by the legislature, then yea.

That is fairly accurate. It would seem like a responsible thing to A.) officially prove what is the truth once and for all B.) investigate if in fact unconstitutional practices have in fact enacted a law...

Quote:

Uh, Brushaber completely validated the 16th amendment and confirmed the constitutionality of the income tax.

If you couldnt tell the line, i was responding in part to the OP.

Quote:

Redfield was a minor case occurring nearly 80 years ago that in no way indicated anything beyond its limited holding. Furthermore, see Department of Revenue v. Clark for an instance where the Court specifically declines to extend Redfield beyond its original reach.

Just thought it was something worth noting in regards to income tax discussion.

Quote:

For someone who was so eager to mock others for supposedly not knowing what they were talking about, you don't seem to have much of an idea of how this works.

The original discussion was in regards to the "CURRENT TAX SYSTEM". The only thing that was posted that has not been proved is unconstitutional ratification.

While most arguments are in essence ridicules, there are some instances where specific state constitutions prohibit the legislature from granting federal tax authority. In these instances, the specific constitutions require a vote of the population, legislature (state) isnt given the authority to ratify such an amendment...

RightinNYC · 10-31-07, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

Unfortunately, all taxes on the individual were taxes based on appropriation and enumeration.

Again, this is incorrect.

Quote:

When the Civil War erupted, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on personal incomes. The income tax was levied at 3 percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year. This tax on personal income was a new direction for a Federal tax system based mainly on excise taxes and customs duties.

U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

The income tax expanded from there, was eventually deemed partly unconstitutional by the court in that particular format, was minimized, and was then revamped in a different format leading up to the 16th amendment.

Quote:

The 16th amendment is what allowed income tax as we see it now...

Strictly speaking, yes. But your arguments that:

a) Art 1, Sec 8 does not authorize an income tax, and
b) There was no federal income tax before 1913

are both completely false.

Quote:

Whats up with this wiki argument of yours??? Am i wrong, or did the OP say something along the lines of

?????

Previously to 1913, they didnt tax a persons income as they did now. That was the OP's actual question, not whether income tax in any form under any premise existed. Try and stay on topic...

I'm not arguing about the OP, I'm merely responding to the incorrect information that you posted in response to JeffMerriman.

Quote:

It is actually true that the ratification of this amendment was obtained in multiple unconstitutional ways.

Actually, no it's not. Please link me to one reputable Constitutional or legal scholar who agrees with you.

The only people who believe this **** are tax protester conspiracy theorists, the bulk of whom end up getting convicted of tax evasion when they try to practice the idiocy that they preach.

Quote:

That is fairly accurate. It would seem like a responsible thing to A.) officially prove what is the truth once and for all B.) investigate if in fact unconstitutional practices have in fact enacted a law...

Funny you should mention it, but they have addressed it in the past. Over and over, they've rejected every single idiotic argument these idiots make.

One of my favorites:

Miller v. US (1999)

Quote:

Both Complaints brought by Miller are absolutely without merit, as the claims he makes therein have been routinely rejected by federal courts. See McLaughlin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 832 F.2d 986, 986-87 (7th Cir. 1987) (tax protesters who claim they are exempt from payment of income taxes are "thorns in the side of the federal judiciary"); see also Biermann v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 769 F.2d 707, 709 (11th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff's claim that he was not subjected to tax liability as a "natural individual" and "unenfranchised freeman" rejected by the court); Madison v. United States, 752 F.2d 607, 608-09 (11th Cir. 1985) (argument that wage earners are not subject to income tax deemed frivolous). "The starting point for income taxation is that all sums paid to, or on behalf of, an employee are taxable income." Howell v. United States, 775 F.2d 887, 889 [7th Cir. 1985). Miller's 1996 and 1997 W-2s, which are attached to his Complaints, show that he received "[w]ages, tips, other compensation" from United Airlines during both of these years which is subject to federal income tax. His arguments to the contrary are nothing more than rhetoric. Perhaps the Magistrate Judge stated it best in his R&R: "Most of plaintiff's arguments are, at best, only marginally coherent. To the extent they can be understood at all, these arguments involve tortured and nonsensical interpretations of the [IRC]."

The best part is that the douchebag then got Rule 11 sanctions for being so incompetent and wasting the court's time.

Quote:

If you couldnt tell the line, i was responding in part to the OP.

Be that as it may, it's interesting that you cite a case that refutes your argument.

Quote:

Just thought it was something worth noting in regards to income tax discussion.

See above.

Quote:

The original discussion was in regards to the "CURRENT TAX SYSTEM". The only thing that was posted that has not been proved is unconstitutional ratification.

While most arguments are in essence ridicules, there are some instances where specific state constitutions prohibit the legislature from granting federal tax authority. In these instances, the specific constitutions require a vote of the population, legislature (state) isnt given the authority to ratify such an amendment...

Link?

Goldenboy219 · 10-31-07, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

The income tax expanded from there, was eventually deemed partly unconstitutional by the court in that particular format, was minimized, and was then revamped in a different format leading up to the 16th amendment.

My point exactly... What did the OP ask??? Article 1 section 8 has almost nothing to do with the income tax as it is now. All it does is grant the power to tax. Look at the context of my wording...

Quote:

Ever wonder why there wasnt a true federally sponsered income tax until 1913???

True being the key word...

From your own site:

Quote:

Under the Constitution, Congress could impose direct taxes only if they were levied in proportion to each State's population. Thus, when a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in 1894, it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

Your site must be wrong

Quote:

Strictly speaking, yes. But your arguments that:

a) Art 1, Sec 8 does not authorize an income tax, and
b) There was no federal income tax before 1913

are both completely false.

if they werent able to tax all forms of income, it isnt a true income tax...

Quote:

I'm not arguing about the OP, I'm merely responding to the incorrect information that you posted in response to JeffMerriman.

I was just shocked interpretation was brought into the mix when there clearly was a 16th amendment. The entire purpose of the 16th is to make it perfectly clear about the taxing of ones income...

Quote:

The only people who believe this **** are tax protester conspiracy theorists, the bulk of whom end up getting convicted of tax evasion when they try to practice the idiocy that they preach.

They believe a bunch of garbage in regards to section 861 etc...

Quote:

Be that as it may, it's interesting that you cite a case that refutes your argument.

My argument??? What was my argument??? Various state constitutions prohibited this at that very time. You dont believe me, look it up for yourself because i dont even have full knowledge of my own states...

Quote:

Link?

You search the state constitutions yourself. That could take hours upon hours. Ill give you a hint. Ron Paul is against the income tax...

Lerxst · 10-31-07, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

It figures you have no comprehension on what part of the constitution allows for an income tax. Imagine that, a person employed to enforce the law doesnt even have moderate knowledge of the constitution...

Guess what Jeff, article 1 section 8 isnt it. That just allows for things such as a sales tax, excise, tariffs, etc. Ever wonder why there wasnt a true federally sponsered income tax until 1913???
================================================== ========

The 16th amendment is IMHO illegal only due to the fact it was ratified in an unlawful manner. This notion is constantly bounced back between congress and the Supreme Court to no avail.

Some interesting precedents: "Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad", "Redfield v Fisher", and "Jack Cole v Commissioner"...

Wow, RightInNYC just pimped your hillbilly ass all over this thread. Let me ask you this, what does being a police officer have to do with knowing the tax code and the the interpretation of constitutional authority to lay taxes?

I didn't even try to delve into this. I only addressed the idea of uniformity in taxation. I never ever addressed whether or not our current tax system was in line with the intent of our forefathers or whether or not a particular section of the amendments gave any particular authority.

You are so desperate to "show everyone you own me" or something that you will come out here and parade around like some kind of jackass. "Look at me! I owned JeffMerriman! Look how stupid he is!" But look at what you post. You took what I posted and extrapolated to the point that your moronic rambling prompted someone else to jump all over your ass. I'll be the first to admit, I don't really understand the controversy between the intent of the constitution and the way the government has determined it's authority to lay taxes the way they do. And judging from you post, you really don't either. Luckily I didn't put my junk out on the chopping block to get it hammered like you did. Then again your idea of getting dressed up for a date is to wear you clean wife beater and run a comb through your mullet.

I'm sorry you are not as cool as you would like to be. But listen, this is the internet, and it's not really all that important. If I were you maybe I would spend less time getting my head punched in and more time working on developing at least a mildly decent personality.

Goldenboy219 · 10-31-07, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

Wow, RightInNYC just pimped your hillbilly ass all over this thread. Let me ask you this, what does being a police officer have to do with knowing the tax code and the the interpretation of constitutional authority to lay taxes?

pimped my hillbilly a$$??? Another Merriman opinion. The 16th amendment is what granted the federal government to tax the income as we do today.

The civil war taxes were in the form of (denied by RNYC) appropriation and enumeration (i stated it and it was deemed incorrect).

Quote:

I didn't even try to delve into this. I only addressed the idea of uniformity in taxation. I never ever addressed whether or not our current tax system was in line with the intent of our forefathers or whether or not a particular section of the amendments gave any particular authority.

Than why reply that section 1 article 8 has any uniformity in regards to the income tax??? It doesnt, unless you were talking about enumeration and appropriation???

Quote:

You are so desperate to "show everyone you own me" or something that you will come out here and parade around like some kind of jackass. "Look at me! I owned JeffMerriman! Look how stupid he is!" But look at what you post. You took what I posted and extrapolated to the point that your moronic rambling prompted someone else to jump all over your ass. I'll be the first to admit, I don't really understand the controversy between the intent of the constitution and the way the government has determined it's authority to lay taxes the way they do. And judging from you post, you really don't either. Luckily I didn't put my junk out on the chopping block to get it hammered like you did. Then again your idea of getting dressed up for a date is to wear you clean wife beater and run a comb through your mullet.

Does every response have to be part conception??? I was just bustin your balls a little bit about this particular subject.

What part of my post would give you the reason to believe im making things up???

Ill tell you what. You can talk all the $hit you want. You can ride everyones jock anytime they have even a minor disagreement with me. Than after words, talk your smack.

I will just call things how i see them, and do my best to be unbiased towards the subject matter as much as possible. Ill also bust your balls every time you express your intellect.

Sound ok to you???

Quote:

I'm sorry you are not as cool as you would like to be. But listen, this is the internet, and it's not really all that important. If I were you maybe I would spend less time getting my head punched in and more time working on developing at least a mildly decent personality.

If i was "trying to be as cool as i wanted", i most definitely wouldnt be here trying to achieve that goal. BTW, the gloves are not until late April, so im a full time student until then.

Back to the point at hand Jeff.

Quote:

Do you think current federal taxation code complies with this article of the constitution?

If you didnt know the answer, why post???

Answer: no, its the 16th amendment. As shown by RNYC, all other income based taxes were based off of appropriation and enumeration...

Lerxst · 10-31-07, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

pimped my hillbilly a$$??? Another Merriman opinion. The 16th amendment is what granted the federal government to tax the income as we do today.

The civil war taxes were in the form of (denied by RNYC) appropriation and enumeration (i stated it and it was deemed incorrect).

Than why reply that section 1 article 8 has any uniformity in regards to the income tax??? It doesnt, unless you were talking about enumeration and appropriation???

Does every response have to be part conception??? I was just bustin your balls a little bit about this particular subject.

What part of my post would give you the reason to believe im making things up???

Ill tell you what. You can talk all the $hit you want. You can ride everyones jock anytime they have even a minor disagreement with me. Than after words, talk your smack.

I will just call things how i see them, and do my best to be unbiased towards the subject matter as much as possible. Ill also bust your balls every time you express your intellect.

Sound ok to you???

If i was "trying to be as cool as i wanted", i most definitely wouldnt be here trying to achieve that goal. BTW, the gloves are not until late April, so im a full time student until then.

Back to the point at hand Jeff.

If you didnt know the answer, why post???

Answer: no, its the 16th amendment. As shown by RNYC, all other income based taxes were based off of appropriation and enumeration...

I'm smarter than you are.

Goldenboy219 · 10-31-07, 09:51 PM

Im more of a Ron Paul follower!!!!!! Meaning im smarter

Lerxst · 10-31-07, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

Im more of a Ron Paul follower!!!!!! Meaning im smarter

Damnit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RightinNYC · 11-01-07, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

My point exactly... What did the OP ask??? Article 1 section 8 has almost nothing to do with the income tax as it is now. All it does is grant the power to tax. Look at the context of my wording... True being the key word...

From your own site:

Your site must be wrong

if they werent able to tax all forms of income, it isnt a true income tax...

This is not what you initially argued. I pointed these things out just to highlight the differences between what you were arguing and what the truth was.

Quote:

They believe a bunch of garbage in regards to section 861 etc...

My argument??? What was my argument??? Various state constitutions prohibited this at that very time. You dont believe me, look it up for yourself because i dont even have full knowledge of my own states...

Your argument was that the 16th Amendment is illegal. It is not. You continue to claim it is. I'm asking you for some (any) evidence to support this from a reputable source.

Quote:

Ill give you a hint. Ron Paul is against the income tax...

Ron Paul's a dip****.

Goldenboy219 · 11-01-07, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

This is not what you initially argued. I pointed these things out just to highlight the differences between what you were arguing and what the truth was.

Your argument was that the 16th Amendment is illegal. It is not. You continue to claim it is. I'm asking you for some (any) evidence to support this from a reputable source.

Ron Paul's a dip****.

I argued article 1 section 8 has nothing to do with our current tax system. I proved it, and than you go off and prove it for me.

Jeff and I have a little ball busting contest, which in reality just makes it more fun on here sometimes. He's a big boy, and doesnt need you to come in and attempt to save grace.

The income taxes during the civil war were based on appropriation and enumeration, were they not??? Which means they follow section 8. Last time i checked, the civil war tax has not 1 thing to do with the tax codes of today, as the OP specifically asked. Which goes to show, you were just trying to call me out, and now look silly in doing so.

Your entire point proves mine even further. When i said taxes pre 1913 were based on appropriation and enumeration why is it you said

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
Unfortunately, all taxes on the individual were taxes based on appropriation and enumeration.
Again, this is incorrect.

???????????????????????????

Which goes to show why they made the 16th amendment (my point in regards to Jeff and the OP), meaning your dead wrong.

Unless you dare to have a debate on the constitution????