USMB POLL: Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)

[paulitician]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

Yes. Our Founders didn't oppose Taxation all-together. They opposed immoral and unjust Taxation. And the Income Tax is immoral and unjust. It should be scrapped.

 

[Votto]

Dante is not so smaht

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

guy is a dick. she's no better. marriage made in hell

The chick has an interlock on her car.
So what does that tell you about her? The guy needs to dump that crazy bitch before she destroys his life.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Guys, Skylar obviously won this thread's debate when he pointed out "we don't need a Navy to protect trade."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Votto

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

You hate the US Constitution!

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better.

Shame on you!

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

The framers?

Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which formed the
Constitution, an undue ascendency in expounding it. Apart from the difficulty of verifying
that intention it is clear, that if the meaning of the Constitution is to be sought out of
itself, it is not in the proceedings of the Body that proposed it, but in those of the State
Conventions which gave it all the validity & authority it possesses.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mjm/23/23_0903_0911.pdf
​

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

Justice Ginsburg quoted in the PPACA:

The Framers understood that the “general Interests of the Union” would change over time, in ways they could not anticipate. Accordingly, they recognized that the Constitution was of necessity a “great outlin[e],” not a detailed blueprint, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819), and that its provisions included broad concepts, to be “explained by the context or by the facts of the case,” Letter from James Madison to N. P. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of James Madison 471, 475 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
​

and the Progressives did not add the 16th amendment, the American people did.


Votto is not so smaht

Don't take my word for it, here is what Madison said about the Constitution. You know, the man who is oftern referred to as the father of the Constitution.

Now do you ever read anything about US history other than what Progressives write about it?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

so stupid you do not realize you just pulled a dueling quotes.

btw - Your quote comes from a speech Madison gave: On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties.

You consistently ignore all evidence that challenges your misunderstandings of what you've read or stumbled upon while using search engines.

Madison was of the opinion that you could not look to the framers for meaning, or intentions (as you do) but to the people in the conventions who ratified the document and gave it validity. So if you're going to quote Madison, you'd better do your homework -- and that involves more than searching online for out-of-context quotes. Madison is also not the final word on anything, but like the early Bishops of Rome, a first amongst equals.

The founders/framers/ratifiers never intended future generations to be hamstrung to intent in the way you put forth. This is why they put in an amendment process, and that in and of itself presupposes we get to do what we like using the processes available to us in the document. We stay true to our own beliefs and values and are able to change anything and everything in the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Supreme Court Declares Income Tax Unconstitutional The Partners Network

The Supreme Court declared the income tax to be null and void in a momentous 5-4 decision written by the Chief Justice...

Stupid. So what? What is your point? No one disputes this? The 16th amendment remedied this.

Or do you think the people do NOT have a right to change anything the founders believed in?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Hey Dante do you agree with Skylar that we don't need Navy protect trade?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey Dante do you agree with Skylar that we don't need Navy protect trade?

We don't need one. We want one. We're better off having one than not, but we could trade without a navy.

Personally, I don't care if we rule the seas. It's very costly, but so would be sicking ones head in the sand on this one

 

[Skylar]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

Yes. Our Founders didn't oppose Taxation all-together. They opposed immoral and unjust Taxation. And the Income Tax is immoral and unjust. It should be scrapped.

The founders opposed taxation without representation. You have representation under income tax. Your conflicts with income tax aren't the conflicts that the Founders had with the British. And simply typing the words 'Income Tax is immoral and unjust' is meaningless without a reasoned, rational argument.

And all you can give us are a series of circular, nested assumptions to support your belief. None of which the founders necessarily shared. None of which the constitution includes.

 

[Skylar]

Hey Dante do you agree with Skylar that we don't need Navy protect trade?

Can you quote me saying that? Not a paraphrase, but the actual quote.

 

[Contumacious]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

No, you are.

A Constitutional Tax is one collected to finance the powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.


None of those powers include feeding you , clothing you , insuring you or quenching thirst nor educating you up to community college.

Those powers have been USURPED by corrupt politicians.


.


.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All taxation, in its basic sense, is theft because it is not voluntary.

So the founders were thieves then?

Yes. Our Founders didn't oppose Taxation all-together. They opposed immoral and unjust Taxation. And the Income Tax is immoral and unjust. It should be scrapped.

The founders opposed taxation without representation. You have representation under income tax. Your conflicts with income tax aren't the conflicts that the Founders had with the British. And simply typing the words 'Income Tax is immoral and unjust' is meaningless without a reasoned, rational argument.

And all you can give us are a series of circular, nested assumptions to support your belief. None of which the founders necessarily shared. None of which the constitution includes.

We have representation under our form of government. The Colonials had issues with taxation without consent. There were other issues, but simply quoting results of a search that involves typing in idiotic words into a search engine alone, doesn't make one an informed citizen.

step up your game

 

[johnwk]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

You hate the US Constitution!

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better.

Shame on you!

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

The framers?

Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which formed the
Constitution, an undue ascendency in expounding it. Apart from the difficulty of verifying
that intention it is clear, that if the meaning of the Constitution is to be sought out of
itself, it is not in the proceedings of the Body that proposed it, but in those of the State
Conventions which gave it all the validity & authority it possesses.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mjm/23/23_0903_0911.pdf
​

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

Justice Ginsburg quoted in the PPACA:

The Framers understood that the “general Interests of the Union” would change over time, in ways they could not anticipate. Accordingly, they recognized that the Constitution was of necessity a “great outlin[e],” not a detailed blueprint, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819), and that its provisions included broad concepts, to be “explained by the context or by the facts of the case,” Letter from James Madison to N. P. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of James Madison 471, 475 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
​

and the Progressives did not add the 16th amendment, the American people did.


Votto is not so smaht

Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.





16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law

Meaning of Language

Ordinary meaning, generally



”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)




16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”


par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings


“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )


Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.


“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )


The bottom line succinctly stated by our very own Supreme Court is:





The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


In other words, when questions arise as to what is and what is not constitutional, and with respect to a specific provision of our Constitution, we are to find its meaning as it was understood by those who framed and ratified the Constitution. Some of the historical references would be: Madison’s notes, the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers, and the State Ratification debates [Elliot’s Debates], and with reference to the 14th Amendment, the 39th Congressional Debates are an accepted source.


JWK





Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Skylar]

So, are you then contending that slavery was 'right' or just?

I'm contending that the government enacting the will of the people isn't inherently wrong or unjust. But what government is supposed to do. And that the morality or justice of a policy is judged by its outcome and intent. Not by its mere existence.

If the 'people's' will is counter to freedom then yes, it is wrong.

Who says that incentives are counter to freedom? The government reflecting the will of the people is an expression of freedom.

You're beginning with the assumption that incentives are completely counter to freedom. But you can't back that position with anything more than your ability to type it. Your fundamental assumption hasn't been factually established. Its simply been stated.

What you are referring to is NOT a free society.

Begging the question. You merely insist that your belief must be so. But offer no evidence nor even a reasoned argument to establish it.

I reject your assertion on the grounds that its factually baseless and factually refuted by the consent of the governed. There's nothing inherently counter to freedom in a government reflecting the will of the people.

Though, as you've noted, the consent of the governed doesn't make every policy moral or just. A given policy can be unjust, depending on the content and consequences of the policy itself.

Again, this makes anything perfectly justifiable.

No, it doesn't. It simply removes your arbitrary designation that any incentive or policy is unjust or immoral. A given policy's morality and justice can be judged and justified by its own merit, outcome and intent. Or its immorality and injustice by the same standard.

Thus, slavery would be immoral and unjust because of the intent and outcome of the policy. While say, incentivising home ownership and two parent families would be moral and just by the same standards.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Every time I find a new angle in which imperial cultural marxists have wrought destruction upon this nation, I realize that it's the 16th Amendment that gives them the funding to carry out their treason against the Constitution of the United States. From the welfare state (democrats) to the imperialists (republicans), it seems that both of them fund their Big Government Tyranny (internally and externally) by garnishing our wages.

We pay for the destruction of our own liberties at home and the desolation of foreign nations abroad.

You hate the US Constitution!

The 16th amendment is there because god told the framers to put an amendment process in place so future generations could make things better.

Shame on you!

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

The framers?

Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which formed the
Constitution, an undue ascendency in expounding it. Apart from the difficulty of verifying
that intention it is clear, that if the meaning of the Constitution is to be sought out of
itself, it is not in the proceedings of the Body that proposed it, but in those of the State
Conventions which gave it all the validity & authority it possesses.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/mss/mjm/23/23_0903_0911.pdf
​

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about.

Justice Ginsburg quoted in the PPACA:

The Framers understood that the “general Interests of the Union” would change over time, in ways they could not anticipate. Accordingly, they recognized that the Constitution was of necessity a “great outlin[e],” not a detailed blueprint, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819), and that its provisions included broad concepts, to be “explained by the context or by the facts of the case,” Letter from James Madison to N. P. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of James Madison 471, 475 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).
​

and the Progressives did not add the 16th amendment, the American people did.


Votto is not so smaht

Apparently you do not agree with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction...

johnwk

Where you get this?. What can you quote from the linked posts that brings you to this conclusion?

 

[Contumacious]

So, are you then contending that slavery was 'right' or just?

I'm contending that the government enacting the will of the people isn't inherently wrong or unjust. .

Of course it is.

We have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

ANY LAW that transgresses upon those rights is UNconstitutional.


.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, SCOTUS found the federal income tax unconstitutional, which forced Progressives to add it to the Constitution.

No, the SCOTUS found that income from real property was a direct tax. And that a direct tax had to be apportioned to the several states per the apportionment clause. Income tax itself wasn't unconstitutional. The lack of apportionment was.

And this only applied to income from real property. Income from vocations and occupations were a generic indirect tax. That merely required the same rules across the entire country.

The Founders never intended for this to happen. In fact, they were paranoid about an all powerful federal government as it was.

The founders had no problem with direct taxes. They even gave rules on how they were to be implemented and levied such taxes themselves.

We decided that the apportionment clause on income from real property was unnecessary. And changed it with the 16th amendment. The 16th created no new taxation authority. It merely lifted apportionment requirements for taxes on specific types of income.

 

[Skylar]

Of course it is.

We have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

ANY LAW that transgresses upon those rights is UNconstitutional.


.

And who says which laws transgress those rights? That wouldn't be you.

But the federal judiciary. Interpreting the constitution is the duty and responsibility of the judiciary. Thus, their rulings on which laws violate or don't violate which rights is constitutionally authoritative.

And taxation in general has never been found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Skylar]

Don't take my word for it, here is what Madison said about the Constitution. You know, the man who is oftern referred to as the father of the Constitution.

Now do you ever read anything about US history other than what Progressives write about it?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

And what is the context of that quote? Madison arguing against subsidies for certain fishermen only a few years after the constitution was ratified. And his interpretation was rejected by the founding fathers who voted for the subsidies anyway. Just as the founding fathers created the First Bank of the United States during the first session of congress, over Madison's objections.

If we've 'abandoned the constitution', we've done so since the first session of congress.

 

[Contumacious]

Of course it is.

We have a right to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness.

ANY LAW that transgresses upon those rights is UNconstitutional.


.

And who says which laws transgress those rights? That wouldn't be you.

But the federal judiciary. Interpreting the constitution is the duty and responsibility of the judiciary. Thus, their rulings on which laws violate or don't violate which rights is constitutionally authoritative.

And taxation in general has never been found to be unconstitutional.

Stop the argument authority from authority bullshit.

The Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative..


My income is MY PROPERTY which I earned by working.


My ONLY responsibility towards the federal government is to pay for those activities which were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.

No explanation has been , nor can any be , provided explaining how they can tax my wages? Specially when the so-called Amendment only athorizes ax tax on INCOME not upon the source from which it is derived.

.