Tax questions...

[Elect]

I posted the following and received the following as a response on another forum. Frankly, I don't believe the individual is correct, but thought maybe someone here could give me some confirmation of that fact.

My Quote:
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 both require direct taxes (i.e. taxes directly on the people's "income", as opposed to taxes indirectly imposed upon the people through items they buy) to be apportioned among the states. Unless the first Article of the Constitution is repealed or amended, your interpretation of the 16th amendment would clearly render it unconstitutional. You cannot legally amend the Constitution with an amendment which of itself violates the Constitution.

Their Response:
You seem to have mistaken your idealism for legal definitions. While you may feel this is the case, the 16th amendment defines federal income taxation as indirect taxation and with no apportionment applicable. Again the amendment:

16th amendment- 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.

Again, AMENDMENTS SUPERSEDE OR REPLACE EARLIER CLAUSES. It is a change to the constitution. In this case, it redefines federal income tax as indirect tax that is not due to be apportioned. Again, you don't have to like it, but it is the law of the land. It was also upheld by the courts, from your own quote:


Quote:
...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment..."

The rest of your post has no bearing on teh constitutional powers of congress to set, collect, and spend income taxes. I am not arguing the constutionality of how its implemented. However, the constitutionality of the ability of congress to set, collect, and spend income tax without apportionment is on solid legal footing and has passed constitutional court muster.


Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916)

Again, you don't have to like it, but throwing up a bunch of red herring to the central argument of Congress's power to collect income taxes doesn't change its solid legal footing. Pay special attention to the part that says :

Quote:
from whatever source derived

PS: Again, your defining of income taxes as from corporate sources doesn't make it so and its dramatically contradicted by historical precedent. The modern corporation didn't even exist till the late 1800s (though a few of the important laws that laid the ground work for them came from the early 1800s, still few DECADES after the Constitution was written.)

As I said, you don't have to like it, but if you are that passionate, write a letter of justification for refusing to pay your taxes to your local congressman, reject the irs, file suite, and ask for appeal to the supreme court. That is your legal path of remedy. The problem is you are trying to substitute your feelings on the matter with the legal definitions and cases work. The goverment and the law don't care how you feel about it, and complaining about it won't change it. Start a political party and try to change it. More power to you.

Is this guy off his rocker, and if so does anyone have anything I can respond with. Does an amendment in fact supercede existing articles of the Constitution, and can the Constitution contradict itself? I've never believed it could be true, but in law, God only knows...

Thanks in advance for the help...

[indio007]

The IRS isn't collecting income tax for the usage of the US gov't. They are collecting income tax to refund the private federal reserve. The are merely administering private (contract) law as it relates to currency.

[Elect]

My question addresses more of the issue of Constitutional Law. Can/does an amendment override the preceding parts of the Constitution, or does the Constitution as a whole have to conform without contradictions?

The whole argument sounds asinine to me, but nevertheless I'd like to defeat it if possible. Thanks!

[Lawdog]

Of course an amendment changes the Constitution. The very word "amend" means "change."

Originally, Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. The 17th Amendment says Senators are to be elected by the people of the states. Which method do we use today? The latter. The Amendment is followed, not the original text.

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court has said the income tax is an indirect tax. For over 100 years now, every federal court that has heard the issue has declared the income tax to be valid, enforceable and constitutional.

In any case, the best source to disabuse yourself of tax protester notions is Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[indago]

Elect wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I posted the following and received the following as a response on another forum. Frankly, I don't believe the individual is correct, but thought maybe someone here could give me some confirmation of that fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Check HERE

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The very word "amend" means "change."

Obfuscation.

Partial.

That is the lesser part of the meaning.

"Amend" hardly licenses the shredding of the very fabric.

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by mrg

Obfuscation.

Partial.

That is the lesser part of the meaning.

"Amend" hardly licenses the shredding of the very fabric.

Please explain to those of us with less insight than you how the following places any restriction, other than procedural, on the amendment of the Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when 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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[mertensv16]

In addition to Lawdog's example of the 17th Amendment, consider the 12th Amendment, which changed the way the Vice President is elected. In the original text of the Constitution, the presidential candidate coming in second became the Vice President; per the 12th Amendment, however, the VP is separately selected by the electors.

Also consider Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 (known as the Fugitive Slave Clause), which clearly contemplates the institution of slavery. This obviously conflicts with the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

So unless you believe that as a legal matter John Kerry is the real Vice President or that slavery is still legal, drop the erroneous notion that an amendment to the Constitution can't supersede a provision of the original text. That isn't and never has been the law.

[palani]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

So unless you believe that as a legal matter John Kerry is the real Vice President or that slavery is still legal, drop the erroneous notion that an amendment to the Constitution can't supersede a provision of the original text.

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/13thAmendment.htm

The 13th amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress. Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 11956.

A presumption might be that 11956 actually means 119 for and 56 against.

Is it really an amendment if every state doesn't get a chance to agree or disagree to it?

Possibly a poor example, SV16.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by KarenM

Please explain to those of us with less insight than you how the following places any restriction, other than procedural, on the amendment of the Constitution.

Amend does not mean license to rend the very fabric.

This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in PURSUANCE THEREOF...shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.

"Amend" does not mean license to rend the very fabric, does not mean license to alter the form of government, does not mean license to negate checks and balances...