TAX DEPOSITION QUESTIONS: 6.  SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

6. SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

Introduction

The government claims its sole legal authority for the income tax is the 16th Amendment.  It was irrefutably, in direct violation of law, fraudulently certified as ratified in 1913, and is therefore, void.

Findings and Conclusions

With the assistance of the following series of questions, we intend to prove that the IRS, the Courts, and even the NY Times cite the 16th Amendment as government's authority to impose a tax directly on the People's labor, but that the 16th Amendment did not come close to being ratified and was fraudulently declared to have been ratified by Philander Knox.  We will also show that:

  • The IRS cites the 16th Amendment as its authority to force employers to withhold the income tax from the paychecks of its employees and to force the People to file a tax return and to pay the income tax.
  • The Secretary of State in 1913, Philander Knox, in ignoring the obvious, and well documented procedural and substantive defects in the states’ legislative votes on the 16th Amendment, violated the law and the Constitution by fraudulently certifying the amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • When asked to determine the question of the fraudulent adoption of the 16th Amendment, a federal Court of Appeals said that was a political question for Congress to decide.
  • The original constitutional clause in Article 1 section 9 clause 4 REQUIRES that all direct taxes be apportioned. This clause has never been repealed. The enforcement of laws based on the 16th Amendment can NOT conflict with this clause.
  • Our laws must be unambiguous to have legal validity. To tolerate otherwise is to deprive the People of the due process protections of the Constitution.

Bottom Line: The government claims its sole authority for the income tax on the 16th Amendment. It was fraudulently ratified. All other discussions are secondary.

Section Summary

Winesses:

  • William Benson (Ex Illinois Revenue Investigator)
  • Joseph Bannister (Ex. IRS Criminal Investigator)
  • Larry Becraft (Constitutional Attorney)

Transcript

Acrobat version of this section including questions and evidence (large: 68.07 MBytes)

Further Study On Our Website:

6.1.  Admit that the IRS says it is the 16th Amendment that gives it the authority to impose the income tax directly on the working people of America. [See IRS Publication No. 1918 (July, 1996), Cat. No.  22524B: (WTP #62a)

"The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that citizens are required to file tax returns and pay taxes."

6.2.  Admit that the New York Times says the 16th Amendment is the government's authority to impose the income tax directly on the working people of America. [See The New York Times Almanac, 2001, The World's Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac, page 161: (WTP #62b)

"Congress's right to levy taxes on the income of individuals and corporations was contested throughout the 19th century, but that authority was written into the Constitution with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913."

6.3  Admit that the federal courts have said the 16th Amendment is the government's authority to impose the income tax directly on the working people of America.  (WTP #62c)
[See United States of America v. Jerome David Pederson, (1985) Case No. CR-84-57-GF: Judge Paul G. Hatfield (United States District Court For the District of Montana) wrote:

"The income tax laws of the United States of America are constitutional, having been validly enacted under authority of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."]

[See also United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir. 1982): the court declared:

"The Sixteenth Amendment removed any need to apportion income taxes among the states that otherwise would have been required by Article I, Section 9, Clause 4."]

6.4.  Admit that findings, published in The Law That Never Was, make a compelling case that the 16th Amendment (the "income tax amendment") was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. [See "The Law That Never Was," by Bill Benson and Red Beckman] (WTP #62d)

6.5.  Admit that the U.S. Court of Appeals, in U.S. v. Stahl (1986), 792 F.2d 1438, ruled that the claim that the ratification of the 16th Amendment was fraudulently certified was a political question for Congress to decide because the court could not reach the merits of the claim without expressing a lack of respect due the Congress and the Executive branches of government. [See U.S. v. Stahl., 792 F.2d 1438] (WTP #63)

6.6.  Admit that in 1985, the Congressional Research Service issued a Report, at the request of Congressmen, to address the claim by Bill Benson that the 16th Amendment was a fraud.  [See "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment," by John Ripy, Esq, CRS 1985, the "Ripy Report"] (WTP #63a)

6.7  Admit that the Ripy Report was very specific in its declaration that it was not going to address the specific factual allegations detailed in Benson's book, The Law That Never Was.  [See "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment," by John Ripy, Esq, CRS 1985] (WTP #63b)

6.8.  Admit that the Ripy Report then went on to assert that the actions of a government official must be presumed to be correct and cannot be judged or overturned by the courts. [See "Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment," by John Ripy, Esq, CRS 1985, the "Ripy Report"] (WTP #63c)

6.9.  Admit that when it comes to amending the Constitution, the government appears to do whatever it wants to do, making up the rules regarding the ratification process as it goes along, while ignoring the spirit, if not the letter, of Article V of the Constitution. (WTP #63d)

6.10. Admit these facts: the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and that the states were allowed 202 years within which to have 3/4th of the states ratify it, with Maryland ratifying it on December 19, 1789 and New Jersey on 1992 [See 57 FR 21187] (WTP #63e)

6.11. Admit that in 1921, in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921), the Supreme Court concluded: (WTP #64)

"We do not find anything in the article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the states may be separated from that in others by many years and yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. These considerations and the general purport and spirit of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of to-day, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal."

6.12. Admit that the date of September 25, 1789, when the 27th Amendment was first proposed, is "widely separated in time" from the date of March 6, 1978, when Wyoming ratified this amendment. [See Annotations, 27th Amendment] (WTP #65)

6.13. Admit that pursuant to the United States Constitution, Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes. [See U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 2, Clause 3; U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 8, clause 1; U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 9, Clause 4] (WTP #66)

6.14. Admit that the constitutionality of the 1894 income tax act was in question in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and that in this case, the Supreme Court found that Congress could tax real and personal property only by means of an apportioned, direct tax. Finding that the income from real and personal property was part of the property itself, the Court concluded in this case that a federal income tax could tax such income only by means of an apportioned tax. Further finding that as this particular tax was not apportioned, it was unconstitutional. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)] (WTP #67)

6.15. Admit that for Congress to tax today real or personal property, the tax would have to be apportioned among the states. [See U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 9, Clause 4] (WTP #68)

6.16. Admit that for Congress to tax income from real and personal property without the authority of the 16th Amendment, such taxes would have to be apportioned. [See U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 1] (WTP #69)

6.17. Admit that in 1913, the following law, Revised Statutes § 205, was in effect: (WTP #70)

"Sec. 205. Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States."

6.18. Admit that Revised Statutes § 205 provided that "official notice" of a State's ratification of an amendment must be received at the State Department. [See R.S. Section 205] (WTP #71)

6.19. Admit that on or about July 31, 1909, Senate Joint Resolution 40 proposing the ratification of the 16th Amendment was deposited with the Department of State and the same was published at 36 Stat. 184, and that this resolution read as follows:  (WTP #72)

SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.

JOINT RESOLUTION.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

"Article XVI. 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."
J.C. CANNON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
J.S. SHERMAN,
Vice-President of the United States, and
President of the Senate.

[See SJ 40, 36 Stat. 184]

6.20. Admit that on July 27, 1909, the same Congress adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which read as follows: (WTP #73)

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine, respecting the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.

Attest: Charles G. Bennett
Secretary of the Senate

A. McDowell
Clerk of the House of
Representatives

[See Concurrent Resolution]

6.21. Admit that not only did this resolution request that certified copies of favorable State ratification resolutions be sent to Washington, D.C., the States were expressly informed to do so by Secretary of State Philander Knox, who sent the following "form" letter to the governors of the 48 States then in the Union: (WTP #74)

"Sir:

"I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a Resolution of Congress, entitled 'Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,' with the request that you cause the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your State for such action as may be had, and that a certified copy of such action be communicated to the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States. (See overleaf.)

An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested.

I have the honor to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,
P. C. Knox"

6.22.  Admit that in 1909, there were 48 states and that three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. [See Knox's Proclamation] (WTP #74a)

6.23.  Admit that Philander Knox declared the 16th Amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, naming the following 38 states as having approved it:  Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland, Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Maine, Tennessee, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New York, South Dakota, Arizona, Minnesota, Louisiana, Delaware, Wyoming, New Jersey, and New Mexico. [See Knox's Proclamantion] (WTP #74b)

6.24. Admit the following facts: (WTP #75)

a. When California provided uncertified copies of its resolution to Secretary of State Philander Knox, Knox wrote the following to California Secretary of State Frank Jordan: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, transmitting a copy of the Joint Resolution of the California Legislature ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in reply thereto I have to request that you furnish a certified copy of the Resolution under the seal of the State, which is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States".

b. When Wyoming Governor Joseph Carey telegraphed Philander Knox news that the Wyoming legislature had ratified the 16th Amendment on February 3, 1913, Philander Knox telegraphed in return as follows: "Replying to your telegram of 3rd you are requested to furnish a certified copy of Wyoming's ratification of Income Tax Amendment so there may be no question as to the compliance with Section 205 of Revised Statutes."

6.25. Admit that on February 15, 1913, a State department attorney, J. Rueben Clarke, informed Secretary of State Philander Knox, in reference to the State of Minnesota, "the secretary of the Governor merely informed the Department that the state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment." [See Reuben Clarke Memo] (WTP #76)

6.26. Admit that, in the official records deposited in the Archives of the United States, there is no certified copy of the resolution of the Minnesota legislature ratifying the 16th Amendment. [See National Book of state ratification documents:  Minnesota] (WTP #77)

6.27. Admit that in the documents possessed by the Archives of the United States, there are no certified copies of the resolutions ratifying the 16th Amendment by California and Kentucky. [See National Book of state ratification documents: California and Kentucky] (WTP #78)

6.28.  Admit that the Kentucky Senate voted 22 to 9 against ratification of the 16th Amendment [See Kentucky Senate Journal] (WTP #78a)

6.29. Admit that Mr. John Ashcroft is currently the Attorney General of the United States. (WTP #79)

6.30. Admit that when Mr. Ashcroft was Governor of Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court rendered the following decision in a case involving Mr. Ashcroft, that case being Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985), where the Missouri Supreme Court held: (WTP #80)

"The senate and the house must agree on the exact text of any bill before they may send it to the governor. There may not be the slightest variance. The exact bill passed by the houses must be presented to and signed by the governor before it may become law (laying aside as not presently material alternative procedure by which a bill may become law without the governor's signature.) The governor has no authority to sign into law a bill which varies in any respect from the bill passed by the houses."

6.31. Admit that during hearings regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment in Massachusetts, Mr. Robert Luce made the following statement to the Massachusetts Committee on Federal Relations: "Question by the committee: Are we able to change it? Mr. Luce: No, you must either accept or reject it." [See "The Law That Never Was," by Bill Benson: Statement by Luce to Committee of Federal Relations] (WTP #81)

6.32. Admit that on February 11, 1910, Kentucky Governor Augustus Willson wrote a letter to the Kentucky House of Representatives wherein he stated as follows: (WTP #82)

"This resolution was adopted without jurisdiction of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States which had not been transmitted to and was not before the General Assembly, and in this resolution the words 'on incomes' were left out of the resolution of the Congress, and if transmitted in this form would be void and would subject the Commonwealth to unpleasant comment and for these reasons and because a later resolution correcting the omission is reported to have passed both Houses, this resolution is returned to the House of Representatives without my approval."

[See Letter from Kentucky Governor Wilson to Kentucky House of Rep.]

6.33. Admit that no State may change the wording of an amendment proposed by Congress. (WTP #83)

6.34. Admit that on February 15, 1913, J. Reuben Clarke, an attorney employed by the Department of State, drafted a memorandum to Secretary Knox wherein the following statements were made:  (WTP #84)

"The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording" (page 7). "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."

6.35. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:  (WTP #85)

"Article XVI. 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."

6.36. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #86)

"Article 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and from any census or enumeration."

6.37. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #87)

"Article XVI. 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 census enumeration."

6.38. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #88)

"Article XVI. 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 remuneration."

6.39. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #89)

"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

6.40. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #90)

"The Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever sources derived without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, which amendment was approved on the ---- day of July, 1909."

6.41. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #91)

"Article XVI. 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 of enumeration."

6.42. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #92)

"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, with-out apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration:"

6.43. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: (WTP #93)

"Article XVI. The congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and did submit the same to the legislatures of the several states for ratification;"

6.44. Admit that state officials who prepare and send "official notice" of ratification of constitutional amendments to federal officials in Washington, D.C., do not have any authority to change the wording of the ratification resolution actually adopted by the State legislature. [See "How Our Laws Are Made"] (WTP #94)

6.45.  Admit that the following states were included on Knox's list of 38 states:  Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New  Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. (WTP #94a)

6.46.  Admit that the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment was never properly and legally approved by the Georgia State Senate. (WTP #94b)

6.47.  Admit that the actions taken by the state legislatures of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, in acting on the proposed 16th Amendment, were violative of certain provisions of their state constitutions, which were in effect AND CONTROLLING at the time those states purportedly ratified the 16th Amendment. (WTP #94c)

6.48.  Admit that the state of Tennessee violated Article II, Section 32 of the Tennessee Constitution by denying the people an opportunity to vote for their state legislators between the time the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was submitted to the Tennessee legislature and the time the legislature voted to approve the amendment. (WTP #94d)

6.49.  Admit that the state legislature of Tennessee violated Article II, Section 18 of the Tennessee Constitution by failing to read (and pass), on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  (WTP #94e)

6.50.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Tennessee state legislature violated Article II, Sections 28 and 29 of the Tennessee Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose an income tax on the people of Tennessee. (WTP #94f)

6.51.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Arizona state legislature violated Article IX, Section 9, of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Arizona unless the amount of the tax was fixed in the bill. (WTP #94g)

6.52.  Admit that the state Senate of Arizona violated Article IV, Part 2, Section 12 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (WTP #94h)

6.53.  Admit that the presiding officer of the state Senate of Arizona violated Article IV, Part 2, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to sign, in open session, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.   (WTP #94i)

6.54.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Arkansas state legislature violated Article XVI, Section 11 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Arkansas, unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under the bill would be applied.  (WTP #94j)

6.55.  Admit that the state Senate of Arkansas violated Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  (WTP #94k)

6.56.  Admit that the Governor vetoed the bill approving the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment and the Arkansas state legislature did not take the matter up again. (WTP #94l)

6.57.  Admit that the state Senate of California violated Article 4, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (WTP #94m)

6.58.  Admit that the state Assembly of California violated Article 4, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to record the Yeas and Nays on the vote on the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (WTP #94n)

6.59.  Admit that the Senate and the House of the Colorado legislature violated Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution by failing to read, on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (WTP #94o)

6.60.  Admit that the state Senate of Idaho violated Article III, Section 15 of the State Constitution by failing to read, section by section, just prior to the vote, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (WTP #94p)

6.61.  Admit that the state legislature of Idaho violated Article VI, Section 10 of the State Constitution by failing to send the Governor the "approved" bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (WTP #94q)

6.62.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Illinois state Senate violated Article IV, Section 13 of the State Constitution, by failing to print the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment before the final vote was taken and by failing to read the bill on three different days.  [See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 51-53]  (WTP #94r)

6.63.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Kansas state legislature violated Article 11, Section 205 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Kansas, unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under the bill would be applied. (WTP #94s)

6.64.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Kansas state Senate violated Article 2, Section 128 of the State Constitution, by failing to record the vote on the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (WTP #94t)

6.65.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Kansas state House of Representatives violated Article 2, Section 133 of the State Constitution, by failing to read, section by section, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (WTP #94u)

6.66.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Louisiana state legislature violated Articles 224 and 227 of the Louisiana Constitution, which prohibited the Legislature from voting to impose a federal income tax on the people of Louisiana.  (WTP #94v)

6.67.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Michigan state legislature violated Article X, Section 6 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Michigan unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under the bill would be applied. (WTP #94w)

6.68.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Mississippi state House of Representatives violated Article IV, Section 59 of the State Constitution, by failing to read, three times on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.   (WTP #94x)

6.69.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Mississippi state Senate violated Article IV, Section 59 of the State Constitution, by failing to read the bill, in full, immediately before the vote on its final passage.  (WTP #94y)

6.70.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Missouri state legislature violated Article X, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose a federal income tax on the people of Missouri. (WTP #94z)

6.71.  Admit that Missouri state legislature violated Article V, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution, which required the legislature to submit the governor, the bill "approving" the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment  (WTP #94aa)

6.72.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment, the Montana state House of Representatives violated Article V, Section 22 of the State Constitution by failing to print the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prior to the vote on its passage.  (WTP #94bb)

6.73.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the presiding officer of the Montana state violated Article V, Section 27 of the State Constitution by failing to publicly read, in open session, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S Constitution, just prior to signing the bill. (WTP #94cc)

6.74.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the New Mexico state legislature (both the Senate and the House), violated Article IV, Section 20 of the State Constitution requiring enrollment and engrossment, public reading in full, signing by the presiding officers and the recording of all those acts in journals.  [See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 279-282]  (WTP #94dd)

6.75.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the New Mexico state House of Representatives violated Article IV, Section 15 of the State Constitution, by failing to read, three times on three different days, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [See The Law That Never Was, Volume I, pages 279-282]  (WTP #94ee)

6.76.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the North Dakota state legislature (both the Senate and the House), violated Article II, Section 64 of the State Constitution, which requires re-enactment and publication of amendments. (WTP #94ff)

6.77.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the North Dakota state legislature (both the Senate and the House), violated Article II, Section 63 of the State Constitution, which required three readings of the bill, at length, on three separate days.  (WTP #94gg)

6.78.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Texas House of Representative violated Article III, Section 37 of the State Constitution by voting on the bill before the bill was reported out of a Committee. (WTP #94hh)

6.79.  Admit that in voting to approve the income tax Amendment the Texas state legislature violated Article III,k Section 48 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to impose a federal income tax on the people of Texas.  (WTP #94ii)

6.80.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the presiding officer of the Texas Senate violated Article III, Section 38 of the State Constitution by failing to publicly read, in open session, the bill containing the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, just prior to signing the bill.  (WTP #94jj)

6.81.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Washington state legislature violated Article VII, Section 2 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from imposing a tax upon the people of the state unless the tax was a uniform and equal rate of taxation.  (WTP #94kk)

6.82.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Washington state legislature violated Article VII, Section 2 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from imposing a tax upon the people of the state unless the tax was a uniform and equal rate of taxation. (WTP #94ll)

6.83.  Admit that the Washington state legislature violated Article II, Section 12 of the Washington Constitution, which required the legislature to submit to the governor, the bill "approving" the proposed 16th (income tax) Amendment.   (WTP #94mm)

6.84.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Wyoming state legislature violated Article XV, Section 13 of the State Constitution, which prohibited the legislature from voting to pass any bill, which imposed a tax on the people of Wyoming unless the bill specified the specific purpose to which the tax to be imposed under the bill would be applied.  (WTP #94nn)

6.85.  Admit that in voting to approve the 16th (income tax) Amendment the Wyoming state legislature violated Article III, Section 20 of the State Constitution, by voting only on the title of the bill.  (WTP #94oo)

6.86. Admit that the "income" tax at subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code cannot be lawfully and constitutionally collected if the 16th Amendment is not a valid amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [See Parker v. C.I.R., 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984)]  (WTP #95)

6.87. Admit that the income taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not apportioned, so if the 16th Amendment was not ratified, the taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not constitutional under Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).  (WTP #96)

6.88. Admit that in 1913, Congress passed the following income tax act:  (WTP #97)

"A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum . . . and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere."

6.89. Admit that Mr. Brushaber challenged this income tax as being unconstitutional. [See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1915).]  (WTP #98)

6.90. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the tax on income was an excise tax. (WTP #99)

6.91. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent the income tax from being taken out of the class of excise taxes where it rightly belonged. (WTP #100)

6.92. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court discarded the notion that a direct tax could be relieved from apportionment, because to so hold would destroy the two great classifications of taxes. [See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1916)]  (WTP #101)

6.93. Admit that the Union Pacific Railroad was a United States (federal) Corporation located in the Utah Territory. [See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1915)]  (WTP #102)

6.94. Admit that the privilege of operating as a corporation can be taxed as an excise. [See Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911)]  (WTP #103)

6.95. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held a tax on income was a direct tax, but could be imposed without apportionment because the 16th Amendment gave Congress the 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. [See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920)]  (WTP #104)

6.96. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Eisner:  (WTP #105)

a. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, under the Act of August 27, 1894, c. 349, section 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553, it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the States according to population, as required by Art. 1, section 2, c1.3, and section 9, cl.4, of the original Constitution.

b. Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished: "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." As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income.

c. A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be over ridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

d. In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income" as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

[See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920)]

6.97. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Second Circuit take the position that the income tax is an indirect tax. (WTP #106)

6.98. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit take the position that the income tax in a direct tax. (WTP #107)

6.99. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution recognized two classes of taxes, direct taxes and indirect taxes. (See Pollock v. Farmer's Load & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]  (WTP #111)

6.100. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 and Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 4, required apportionment of all direct taxes. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]  (WTP #112)

6.101. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1, required all indirect taxes to be uniform. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]   (WTP #113)

6.102. Admit that in 1894, no one doubted that an excise tax was an indirect tax as opposed to a direct tax. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]  (WTP #114)

6.103. Admit that in 1894 Congress passed the following income tax act:  (WTP #115)

Sec. 27. That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and until the first day of January, nineteen hundred, there shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and every person residing therein, whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from any kind of property rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, a tax of two per centum on the amount so derived over and above four thousand dollars, and a like tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States. And the tax herein provided for shall be assessed, by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and collected, and paid upon the gains, profits and income for the year ending the thirty-first day of December next preceding the time for levying, collecting, and paying said Tax.

6.104. Admit that Mr. Pollock, a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, challenged the 1894 income tax on the grounds that the tax imposed was a direct tax that was not apportioned. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]  (WTP #116)

6.105. Admit that the majority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court found that the 1894 tax at Sec. 27 was a direct tax. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]  (WTP #117)

6.106. Admit that the minority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court in the Pollock case believed the 1984 tax at Sec. 27 was an indirect tax. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]  (WTP #118)

6.107. Admit that the United States Supreme Court held the 1894 income tax was unconstitutional as being in violation of the apportionment requirements for direct taxes. [See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh. 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]  (WTP #119)

6.108. Admit that in 1909, President Taft called a special session of Congress for the purpose of amending the apportionment requirement of income taxes. (WTP #120)

6.109. Admit that during the congressional debate on the income tax amendment, it was stated that the income tax would not touch one hair of a working man's head.  (WTP #121)

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship Last revision: August 01, 2009 08:04 AM
  This private system is NOT subject to monitoring