Tornado Alley (PROG)

[livefree_ordie]

Tax on Wages not ever voted on or allowed by original 16th Amendment. They put it in afterwards. Hence the term ‘Income Tax’ Income is what you make with the money you get paid for your work in Wages, you take that money and invest it and make a profit you pay a tax on that profit the money you made from your wages that you invested into something. Not Wages you earned for hours worked for your pay. Now today's world locals in Evanston, IL are to pay out cash for reparations to some in their community. So taxes both Federal and State and Local Taxes pay for things like Highways, Bridges, Street Lights, Emergency Services, Upgrades to Town structures and upkeep of Cemetary's among many other things. For all citizens of that Town/City, not money to be placed for some into bank accounts for a few in that same City/Town. Also they had to finagle the payments and EBT monies they get now so that this distribution would not affect their other free money from government agencies, so basically they broke the law to get funding to these select few folks of the entire Town. Nice hey. Ah America of the few we love you all. We are all God's children right folks. Nothing equal here, but straight out discrimination.

Anyway onto the illegal 16th Amendment.

https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/04/16th-amendment-as-written-no-tax-on-wages-or-salaries/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Article
• Talk
• Read
• View source
• View history
The Sixteenth Amendment in the National Archives
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.
Prior to the early 20th century, most federal revenue came from tariffs rather than taxes, although Congress had often imposed excise taxes on various goods. The Revenue Act of 1861 had introduced the first federal income tax, but that tax was repealed in 1872. During the late nineteenth century, various groups, including the Populist Party, favored the establishment of a progressive income tax at the federal level. These groups believed that tariffs unfairly taxed the poor, and they favored using the income tax to shift the tax burden onto wealthier individuals. The 1894 Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act contained an income tax provision, but the tax was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not hold that all federal income taxes were unconstitutional, but rather held that income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were direct taxes and thus had to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.
For several years after Pollock, Congress did not attempt to implement another income tax, largely due to concerns that the Supreme Court would strike down any attempt to levy an income tax. In 1909, during the debate over the Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to the states. Though conservative Republican leaders had initially expected that the amendment would not be ratified, a coalition of Democrats, progressive Republicans, and other groups ensured that the necessary number of states ratified the amendment. Shortly after the amendment was ratified, Congress imposed a federal income tax with the Revenue Act of 1913. The Supreme Court upheld that income tax in the 1916 case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., and the federal government has continued to levy an income tax since 1913.
Text
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.
Other Constitutional provisions regarding taxes
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ...[1]
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
This clause basically refers to a tax on property, such as a tax based on the value of land,[2] as well as a capitation.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 5:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Income taxes before the Pollock case
Until 1913, customs duties (tariffs) and excise taxes were the primary sources of federal revenue.[3] During the War of 1812, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander J. Dallas made the first public proposal for an income tax, but it was never implemented.[4] The Congress did introduce an income tax to fund the Civil War through the Revenue Act of 1861.[5] It levied a flat tax of three percent on annual income above $800. This act was replaced the following year with the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a graduated tax of three to five percent on income above $600 and specified a termination of income taxation in 1866. The Civil War income taxes, which expired in 1872, proved to be both highly lucrative and drawing mostly from the more industrialized states, with New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts generating about sixty percent of the total revenue that was collected.[6]
During the two decades following the expiration of the Civil War income tax, the Greenback movement, the Labor Reform Party, the Populist Party, the Democratic Party and many others called for a graduated income tax.[6]
The Socialist Labor Party advocated a graduated income tax in 1887.[7] The Populist Party "demand[ed] a graduated income tax" in its 1892 platform.[8] The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894,[9] and proposed an income tax in its 1908 platform.[10] Proponents of the income tax generally believed that high tariff rates exacerbated income inequality, and wanted to use the income tax to shift the burden of funding the government away from working class consumers and to high-earning businessmen.[11]
Before Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., all income taxes had been considered to be indirect taxes imposed without respect to geography, unlike direct taxes, that have to be apportioned among the states according to population.[12][13]
The Pollock case
See also: Fuller Court and Second presidency of Grover Cleveland
In 1894, an amendment was attached to the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act that attempted to impose a federal tax of two percent on incomes over $4,000 (equal to $135,000 in 2022).[14] The federal income tax was strongly favored in the South, and it was moderately supported in the eastern North Central states, but it was strongly opposed in the Far West and the Northeastern States (with the exception of New Jersey).[15] The tax was derided as "un-Democratic, inquisitorial, and wrong in principle".[16]
In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., the U.S. Supreme Court declared certain taxes on incomes, such as those on property under the 1894 Act, to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" and so should be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks, and so forth, burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.
After Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends, and rental income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).[17]
Dissenting in Pollock, Justice John Marshall Harlan stated:
When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution—two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring—such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.[18]
Members of Congress responded to Pollock by expressing widespread concern that many of the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power.[19] Nonetheless, in the years after Pollock, Congress did not implement another federal income tax, partly because many Congressmen feared that any tax would be struck down by the Supreme Court.[20] Few considered attempting to impose an apportioned income tax, since such a tax was widely regarded as unworkable.[21]
Adoption
See also: Presidency of William Howard Taft and Presidency of Woodrow Wilson

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

On June 16, 1909, President William Howard Taft, in an address to the Sixty-first Congress, proposed a two percent federal income tax on corporations by way of an excise tax and a constitutional amendment to allow the previously enacted income tax.
Upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.[22][23]
An income tax amendment to the Constitution was first proposed by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. He submitted two proposals, Senate Resolutions Nos. 25 and 39. The amendment proposal finally accepted was Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, introduced by Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Senate majority leader and Finance Committee Chairman.[24] The amendment was proposed as part of the congressional debate over the 1909 Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act; by proposing the amendment, Aldrich hoped to temporarily defuse progressive calls for the imposition of new taxes in the tariff act. Aldrich and other conservative leaders in Congress largely opposed the actual ratification of the amendment, but they believed that it had little chance of being ratified, as ratification required approval by three quarters of the state legislatures.[25]
On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Congress[26] and was submitted to the state legislatures.
Support for the income tax was strongest in the western and southern states, while opposition was strongest in the northeastern states.[27] Supporters of the income tax believed that it would be a much better method of gathering revenue than tariffs, which were the primary source of revenue at the time. From well before 1894, Democrats, Progressives, Populists and other left-oriented parties argued that tariffs disproportionately affected the poor, interfered with prices, were unpredictable, and were an intrinsically limited source of revenue. The South and the West tended to support income taxes because their residents were generally less prosperous, more agricultural and more sensitive to fluctuations in commodity prices. A sharp rise in the cost of living between 1897 and 1913 greatly increased support for the idea of income taxes, including in the urban Northeast.[28] A growing number of Republicans also began supporting the idea, notably Theodore Roosevelt and the "Insurgent" Republicans (who would go on to form the Progressive Party).[29] These Republicans were driven mainly by a fear of the increasingly large and sophisticated military forces of Japan, Britain and the European powers, their own imperial ambitions, and the perceived need to defend American merchant ships.[30] Moreover, these progressive Republicans were convinced that central governments could play a positive role in national economies.[31] A bigger government and a bigger military, they argued, required a correspondingly larger and steadier source of revenue to support it.
Opposition to the Sixteenth Amendment was led by establishment Republicans because of their close ties to wealthy industrialists, although not even they were uniformly opposed to the general idea of a permanent income tax. In 1910, New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes, shortly before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, spoke out against the income tax amendment. Hughes supported the idea of a federal income tax, but believed the words "from whatever source derived" in the proposed amendment implied that the federal government would have the power to tax state and municipal bonds. He believed this would excessively centralize governmental power and "would make it impossible for the state to keep any property".[32]
Between 1909 and 1913, several conditions favored passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. Inflation was high and many blamed federal tariffs for the rising prices. The Republican Party was divided and weakened by the loss of Roosevelt and the Insurgents who joined the Progressive Party, a problem that blunted opposition even in the Northeast.[33] In 1912, the Democrats won the presidency and control of both houses of Congress. The country was generally in a left-leaning mood, with a member of the Socialist Party winning a seat in the U.S. House in 1910 and the party's presidential candidate polling six percent of the popular vote in 1912.
Three advocates for a federal income tax ran in the presidential election of 1912.[34] On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the states and so had become part of the Constitution.[35] The Revenue Act of 1913, which greatly lowered tariffs and implemented a federal income tax, was enacted shortly after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified.[36]

16th Amendment: The UNCONSTITUTIONAL Law of the Land – Mark Glogowski (glogowskiforassembly.com)

16th Amendment
The UNCONSTITUTIONAL Law of the Land.
The US Supreme Court has ruled the 16th Amendment, which authorized a direct tax on income, was the (unconstitutional) Law of the Land.
1894 – A Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill authorizing an income tax.
1896 – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on income was unconstitutional.
1909 – A Republican-controlled Congress and Republican President (William Howard Taft) passed a bill authorizing a direct tax on income and sent the bill to the states to be ratified as an amendment to the US Constitution.
1913 – A Democrat-controlled Congress and Democrat President (Woodrow Wilson), and thirty-six Republican and Democrat-controlled states ratified the 16th amendment.
1916 – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the 1909 Congressional bill that became the 16th Amendment was unconstitutional. (1) Their wording was, it is not supported (as allowable) by the US Constitution.

Prior to the Civil War, the U.S. Government was funded only by a direct tax apportioned to the states based on population, and by “duties, imposts, and excises (included tariffs and sales taxes) that were uniform throughout the United States”.
In 1861 Congress implemented a temporary tax on income to pay down the Civil War debt and it created the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect the tax.
By 1882 the tax was ended and the IRS was dissolved.
Now Congress faced a problem it had not experienced for two decades: If the US Senate approved the federal budget proposed by the House, paying for the ap-proved budget was the Senate’s problem. Without an income tax to rely on, Congress was forced to operate once again within a very restrictive revenue budget. The tariffs on imported goods were reaching 25%, which made the Senate dis-pleased because international trade relations were being dramatically impacted. The other alternative revenue source was just as objectionable – raising the per capita direct tax charged to the States.
Income tax was tolerated for 20 years because it was a temporary tax with a specific purpose. Nevertheless, income tax was a panacea for revenue. Congress made it a priority to bring it back and to make it a permanent fixture in America. In 1894, in an effort to open the doors again to easy money, Congress passed a direct tax on income. In 1896, the “direct tax on income” was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
The Democrats and Republicans set out to terminate the impact of the financial barriers in the U.S. Constitution. They succeeded. The 16th Amendment was ratified and it gave Congress the power to levy an unconstitutional income tax.
Despite the fact that the US Supreme Court ruled that there is no support in the Constitution for collecting an income tax as a direct tax and that the 16th Amendment “destroys the two great classifications (financial barriers) which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning”, and stated that ‘Congress abused the power to tax with which it had been entrusted by the US Constitution’ when it passed the bill in 1909 that became the 16th Amendment, the Democrats and Republicans did not care. They have done nothing to rescind the 16th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment threw the doors to tyranny wide open. There is now no limit to the wealth the US Government can confiscate. In fact, one hundred percent (100%) of the entire output of the nation is there for the taking. Congress can now confiscate and dispose of your income as it pleases. All that needs to be decided is the question, “How much of the income that you earned will the government allow you to keep.”
The division of power, the checks and balances, and the two financial barriers that were placed in the US Constitution were intended to work hand in hand to pre-vent tyranny. None of those features are taken into consideration today. The financial barriers are gone. The division of power is ignored. The checks and balances no longer play a determinant role in government. The 16th Amendment makes you and every working American a slave. The government is your Master.
For the past 107 years, the elected candidates from both parties have refused to even consider taking steps to rescind the 16th amendment. The Democrats and Republicans have turned our government into a ruthless master, and they want to keep it that way.
Until the 16th Amendment is rescinded, you will be required to annually report to the government every penny you earn, and where you spend, invest, and save the money that you earn for them. If you don’t report, if you do not follow their rules, if you keep too much of their money, you will regret your actions. They have created what has been referred to as the “most ruthless collection agency in the world” – the IRS. The consequences of not reporting are dire. As is the case in any master/slave relationship, if the master decides you attempted to keep too much of the master’s money (even though it is your earnings), your life will become absolutely miserable. You can lose your home, your business, and even your liberty.
If we are ever to experience real freedom and liberty, we need to remove this tyrannical power that gives our government the ability to just take our income. The Libertarian Party is the only political party that has committed itself to the elimination of the income tax; Libertarian solutions do not need to confiscate the wealth of our nation to be implemented, and we certainly do not need the 16th Amendment.
Being realistic, before we can eliminate the need for the 16th Amendment, the financial structure of this country needs to be restructured. It will take time to level the mountain of government agencies and departments and unweave the tangle of interrelations that have been created since the 16th amendment has been enacted.
I am running for the NY Assembly because the NYS Assembly is one of the places where the process of restructuring our financial system can begin and the steps to rescind the 16th Amendment can be taken. To be successful, another 35 state assemblies will need to join us.
If you would like to begin breaking the Slave/Master relationship that the 16th amendment created between you and the US Government, consider supporting my efforts to become your NYS Assemblyman. I assure you, rescinding the 16th Amendment is one of my political objectives.


16TH AMENDMENT – NEVER RATIFIED – Michael Ruark

16TH AMENDMENT – NEVER RATIFIED

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).
• https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.html