America freedom to fascism online dating
Prior to the 16th, a court could view the source of the income being taxed to determine if apportionment was required.
After the 16 th, the source was immaterial ("incomes from whatever source derived"), and no apportionment is necessary.
I'll include a good bit on the Federal Reserve issues as well, but most of that has been discussed in prior threads. The Constitution itself was subject to a very particular process, specifically at the demand of the founders, as to the manner in which it was ratified.
The PATRIOT ACT issues are not fully explicated in the movie, but are more asserted as evidence of a generally sinister government. Again, I have issues with this particular act beyond what Russo discusses, but I won't raise those issues here. Tax Part I: The 16th was never ratified Russo does not really explain this argument. However, that specific process was not extended to future amendments.
It is a judge making an offhand, non-binding statement during a hearing. There has been a finding of law regarding the ratification, in the case of U. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate a free online source for the text of this case, however, in looking at this issue for a previous thread, I verified the following quote which can be found a bunch of places online: ... Article 1, section 4, plainly gives authority to the state to legislate within the limitations therein named.
Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. Such legislative action is entirely different from the requirement of the Constitution as to the expression of assent or dissent to a proposed amendment to the Constitution.
This is a common tax protestor tactic (and nearly always leads directly into the 861 argument). It held, briefly, that there are two types of tax: Direct and indirect.
There is a supposedly damning press conference in which IRS Commissioner Joe Banister appears to avoid a question as to what the law is, however, the clip is very clearly edited, as the question is asked of a completely different person. Direct taxes are subject to the requirement of "apportionment", that is, being distributed equally among the states according to their census. Prior to the 16 th Amendment, the "income" tax that existed at that point was ruled to be a direct tax, and subject to apportionment.
The only support he gives for the failure to ratify is a statement from U. The closest I could find was a tax protestor website which gave me this somewhat expanded version of the quote: " "I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the Internal Revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment. Yet nonetheless, I'm sure no court's going to say that the 16th Amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason". The court rejected the suit, and in so doing, clarified certain provisions surrounding state ratification of amendments: "The argument to support the power of the state to require the approval by the people of the state of the ratification of amendments to the federal Constitution through the tedium of a referendum rests upon the proposition that the federal Constitution requires ratification by the legislative action of the states through the medium provided at the time of the proposed approval of an amendment.The one I watched is labeled the "Authorized director's cut", and contains a "last minute" addition of a Lou Dobbs report on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (discussed infra). The rule, in short, is that once a bill is certified enrolled, there is no means by which anyone can then countermand that certification. Russo never really goes into the argument surrounding the ratification, however, it seems likely that he is using the argument found in the book "The Law that Never Was", that states that several states made minor revisions to the Amendment before ratifying it, and that some did not ratify it by a formal act of legislature. The Constitution (deliberately) does not set forth the manner in which states are to ratify an amendment.This rebuttal will focus primarily on the tax issues because (a) they are the major portion of the movie and (b) it's the area I'm most interested in. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. The states, as the entities ratifying (and, specifically, not individuals) need to make clear an objection at the time the Secretary of State releases the list. All it says is that Amendments are valid "..ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress." For most proposed amendments, including he one at issue here, Congress generally proposes the former. The legislature has the power, but it's not clear (from the Constitution) how they exercise the power.Brushaber held that the 16th removed that requirement.This is what causes the "no new powers of taxation" discussion.
Search for america freedom to fascism online dating:
I had anticipated the celebrated "861" argument which has landed Wesley Snipes on the wanted list. Instead, he (and his interviewees) reference several Supreme Court decisions (because, as I was gratified to see, they agree that the Supreme Court is always correct with regard to the Constitution). First, there is a significant amount of discussion regarding the IRS's refusal to show the tax protestors "the law" which requires them to pay tax. This law has been put before the tax protestors interviewed in the movie, who then reject it as non-responsive due to the 861 argument, or other reasons (which appear to be what this movie is banking on). Union Pacific RR, also a 1916 Supreme Court case, and which is mentioned several times in the movie.