The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15181704
B0ycey wrote:
No and yes. Exactly like this guy. I believe he voted for him given he was from the Rust Belt, religious and had some shared interests which can only be described as Trumpisms. But he was an An-Cap and was against the state so VS thought Trump was a means to a goal rather than actually supporting the guy like BJ. As I said, when you get to know a user you pick up on their writing style and their beliefs and whatnot. And Resister is VS without the persona and I don't think lightening has struck twice.


Yea, I get it, I get it. I was able to spot BigSteve's multiple accounts easily just given how he wrote stuff.
#15181743
late wrote:Fact is, people need government, and governments need money. This goes back a few thousand years that we know of, to places like Sumeria.

I've been reading about economics for 40 years, and I am currently reading Debt, the First 5,000 Years. Which is great, btw.

You keep making the same idiotic assertion, it's nuts in a number of ways. For one thing, it's ahistorical. Governments need money. Places with little to no government get gobbled up by governments that do have money. That's how the bucolic and wonderful world of Bhutan changed, in the 1950s. Of course, that are places like Antarctica, where you don't have to pay taxes. You could try living there.

My favorite quote about taxes is the one about the Supreme Court justice that whistled on the way to the mailbox, every time he paid his taxes. Eventually a clerk worked up the nerve to ask him why.

"Today is the day I buy civilisation."


I can't alter the truth because you can't comprehend the English language. Let's try all caps: TAX ON WAGES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is not a swinging dick on this thread that does not understand we have to pay taxes. I can give list of lists of taxes we pay, but a tax on wages is wrong.
#15181744
The Resister wrote:I can't alter the truth because you can't comprehend the English language. Let's try all caps: TAX ON WAGES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is not a swinging dick on this thread that does not understand we have to pay taxes. I can give list of lists of taxes we pay, but a tax on wages is wrong.


How do you account for the 16th Amendment?
#15181749
wat0n wrote:How was the 16th Amendment illegally ratified?



Here are some details on what these people are claiming.... From;

https://givemeliberty.org/features/taxe ... tified.htm
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th 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. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).


But one problem is is that @The Resister just dogmatically expects people to accept this theory, without any debate or details. People like him are not very good at the ''winning friends and influencing people'' department.
#15181750
annatar1914 wrote:Here are some details on what these people are claiming.... From;

https://givemeliberty.org/features/taxe ... tified.htm


But one problem is is that @The Resister just dogmatically expects people to accept this theory, without any debate or details. People like him are not very good at the ''winning friends and influencing people'' department.


Thanks. Since I live in Illinois, I looked for whatever the Illinois Constitution in force at the time (from 1870) said about amendments to the US Constitution. I at least haven't been able to find anything about it thus far:

https://archive.org/stream/cu3192402466 ... 2_djvu.txt
#15181790
annatar1914 wrote:
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT



"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. Proponents mistakenly believe that courts have refused to address this issue.

The Law: 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. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803); see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), 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, after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since then, courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, and in Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, the IRS discussed this frivolous argument in more detail and warned taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds."

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e#D6

When we started to develop a capitalist economy, taxes became inevitable. The Modern world comes with a price tag.
#15181807
annatar1914 wrote:Here are some details on what these people are claiming.... From;

https://givemeliberty.org/features/taxe ... tified.htm


But one problem is is that @The Resister just dogmatically expects people to accept this theory, without any debate or details. People like him are not very good at the ''winning friends and influencing people'' department.


What you're saying is an absolute LIE. I've participated in exactly TWO threads on this board. I don't see any questions relative to the video I left in response to questions about the 16th Amendment. On the other thread, there is no "debate" in the other thread because those who think they are qualified to "debate" opened with verbal assaults laced with false allegations, name calling, baiting and badgering. When you open with that, you lose the "debate" and if I were to acknowledge those who did same, it could be construed as validating losing arguments. You don't know much about "debate," do you?
#15181808
wat0n wrote:How was the 16th Amendment illegally ratified?




Anything worth knowing, is really worth knowing. When you hear critics claim what "some" people believe, they are not speaking for me and probably not about me. They are making stuff up. If you really want the answer to your question, that video is just over an hour and a half (IIRC). Watching it once will save you many hours of wading through a never ending pissing match on this thread. I prefer not to argue with idiots, so that is your answer. The video gives irrefutable proof of why the income tax is unconstitutional. That's my final answer.
#15181809
late wrote:So, having completely lost the argument, you're trying a hail mary.

Good luck with that.

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e

You're nucking futs.


LMAO. ROTF. LMAO. You're still pushing the BIG LIE. My father used a quick technique to quit paying income taxes. He was living his life and wasn't worrying when he died of cancer and when his estate was probated, the million plus dollars in assets was successfully distributed among the people he designated. You can thank the right for having destroyed his technique since it relied on a specific issue your Googled source omits.
#15181810
Whereas this thread is NOT about the 16th Amendment, I will not be "debating" it on this thread. If someone wants to discuss the 16th Amendment, they can start a thread and invite me. If someone wants a "debate," they have to realize that the moment they begin assaulting me with lies, name calling, or trying to assess my responses for other posters, they lose the "debate" and I graciously accept their concession of defeat as I did on the thread I participated on here.

When challenged, I accept the challenge and once I've won I'm no longer required to validate losing arguments to sore losers trying in desperation to use Google to prove me wrong. As for the other challenges posted on this board, since those guys never told me to name a time and a place, they have proven to be Internet cowards that like to use their anonymity to avoid accountability. Then again, I wouldn't want to face me either if I said some of the chickenshit stuff that the Keyboard Commandos have said to and about me here.
#15181812
The Resister wrote:once I've won

Posting crap from an investigator of the paranormal whose favourite TV programme is Ancient Aliens is not winning.


:lol:
#15181835
late wrote:Psst, it's called reality.

If you ever try to pull this in front of a judge, please get us video.


Too late for that, but around here the law is exactly as I have been posting. My reality is that people who exited the system prior to the National ID / REAL ID Act never had to go court for reclaiming their Preamble Rights. If you choose to believe otherwise, do so. We can agree to disagree without belittling the each other. I can do it. Can you?
#15181841
late wrote:"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. Proponents mistakenly believe that courts have refused to address this issue.

The Law: 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. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803); see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), 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, after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since then, courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, and in Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, the IRS discussed this frivolous argument in more detail and warned taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds."

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e#D6

When we started to develop a capitalist economy, taxes became inevitable. The Modern world comes with a price tag.


Maybe if you avail yourself of the video, you will cease and desist the strawman argument approach. If you don't have the whole story, you are not being honest. As I said, I will not argue the 16th Amendment on this thread. You lost by not taking a piece of biblical advice:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]