No it didn't. Nowhere in the constitution's description of the powers and duties of the judiciary is the word "interpret" mentioned. Why is that? Because that's not their job. The constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's not written in Swahili, it's written in simple English. It means EXACTLY what it says; no more, no less.

The final arbiter is the constitution itself. The supreme court doesn't define it or interpret it. They answer to it just like all other parts of government.

No, what I mean is what I said; just like the constitution. And the constitution also says it takes 3/4 of all states to pass an amendment which didn't happen with the 16th amendment and the supreme court has no authority to ignore that requirement.

No, I'm saying it's not anyone's job to interpret the constitution. It doesn't require interpretation and isn't ambiguous. It's very clear in its meaning and the courts aren't granted the authority or power to do "interpretation" of the constitution.

Question.
 

     I was kind of under the impression that amendmants were considered part of the Constitution. Otherwise things like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms aren't in the Constitution. Therefore, doesn't an amedment that adds the right for the Goverment to tax mean that it's in the Constitution now?
     I understand that there is some question as to if it was legaly ratified or not, but I'd like to address that as a seperate issue. After all, untill it's proven to be illegitimate it's still in effect. The Marbary vs. Madison case might be an arguement to throw it out, but where has that arguement been made? I mean in a place that means something legaly.
     Please keep the issues seperate.

You were under the correct impression, however the 16th amendment was never legally ratified and thus is NOT an amendment to the constitution.

You've got that backwards. It must be proven to be legitimate and that's impossible since the required legitimate 36 votes to pass it were not obtained and nothing the supreme court says can change the number of votes cast or the validity of the votes that were cast improperly.

Collectivists often think that government gives rights to the people and powers to states. The opposite is true. Government derives its power from the governed. A nation is made up of millions of individuals. These individuals grant a limited amount of power to government to take care of things like common defense. Since government gets its powers from individuals, it may not have any powers that individuals themselves don't have. A goup of individuals don't have any more rights or authority than a single individual. So if the government makes a law regarding drugs, suicide, or abortion, they have no such authority because we as individuals have no authority to tell our neighbors they may not smoke. We as individuals DO have the authority and power to stop our neighbors from attacking us, murdering, stealing, etc. As individuals we have the right to defend our rights and our lives from injury but don't have the right to tell others what they must or must not consume or to reach into our neighbors pockets for our own needs.

Income taxation is unconstitution for several reasons and one of those is that the government has no authority to tax income even if the majority of Americans voted for it.

The word "interpretation" is just a way to avoid the longhand of "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and..."

No matter how clear or unclear the wording of the law, someone has to be granted the power of decisions about it, and in the US that power is vested in the courts. In trying Case law part of the decision is whether or not the 16th IS law. The courts have decided that it is, again and again.

Here's a good summary of how the courts have decided on this matter.

Gotta be clear, I personally don't mind you not paying, and I like tax protest. I was kind of hoping that the "Not In Our Name" people would extend their protest to "Not With Our Money" because I think that would make some very interesting statements.

But the only thing keeping you out of jail, really, is the blessed incompetence of the IRS -- not some voodoo misinterpretation of how the law works.

I'd also like to add that the framers of the constitution explain their intentions further in the Fedaralist Papers, excerpted below:
<blockquote><i> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.</i></blockquote>

source

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt16/01.html#2 the sixteenth amendment is a recognized part of the Constitution. You say it was never ratified, but it's clearly in effect. Are you saying it's not?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, I agree that the government gets its power from the governed. That being said I don't know many people that feel as you do. Most people accept the fact that without taxes the government would collapse and the would no longer be a United States. Do people like taxes? No, absolutely not. Do they prefer it to anarchy? Well, I haven't seen any good polls on this but I believe so. My point is that there has been no great rise against taxation because people understand it's function. So yes, it is the will of the people that there is taxation.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While were on the subject Radar has said:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I find this interesting since I thought the bitch was "Taxation without Representation," not just not wanting to pay taxes. So either my books in school were intentionally misleading or you are. Somebody has taken to telling half-truths.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I looked it up on Juju's link and it says Secretary Knox Certified Adoption. You say he perjured himself. Hmm, well guess what? Congress accepted it. I'm sure you can show me where he was charged with perjury though right? No? Then this is your opinion and nothing more.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It wasn't stricken, and now the 16th Amendment is part of the Constitution. I read it. It's in there. You telling me that it's not legit does not remove it. So, you disagree with the government, the civil lawyers and most of the US population. And you state it as a fact. Dude, read the Constitution with the Amendments and it's there. Your repeated claims that it's not legit don't change that. It is recognized law right now. Can you show me otherwise?

They have done so unconstitutionally and without authority to make that decision. The courts don't decide whether an amendment has passed. No court decision can change the number of votes for an amendment or the number required to pass it.

There's no voodoo or misinterpretation. In fact I'm not "interpreting" anything. I am reading the constitution and law as it is written and using the definitions used at the time the laws were written. (see blacks law dictionary)


What's keeping me out of jail is the fact that I know the law, know the limitations on the powers of government, and am educated enough to defend myself well. The IRS doesn't want to go after people who know their rights and who are well-prepared to fight in court. They want to go after easy pickings so they can say they've got more convictions. In short, they know they can't beat me in court because there is no law that makes income taxes mandatory.

I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter. And the 16th amendment goes directly against the body of the constitution and is therefore null and void according to the supreme court. So yes, I'm saying it's not in effect and that all attempts to force people to pay income taxes are voluntary.

100% of the constitutional parts of government can be funded by the tariffs and excise taxes already collected. Without income taxes we'd still have roads, we'd still have a military, a judiciary, and America wouldn't collapse. In fact America and our civil liberties would be stronger than ever.


Absolutely false. And if people want to donate their money to government that's up to them but government has no authority to take it from us. And I guarantee you if I took a poll and asked people if they'd like to keep income taxes around or eliminate them the overwhelming majority would choose the latter.

Do you think the will of the people is being adequately represented by our elected officials? Most people don't including myself.

Look to the government and the collectivists providing you with your obviously poor education.

Yes, and he committed outright fraud. He falsified the ratification of an amendment. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Guess what? Congress didn't accept the 16th amendment. If they had, the required number of votes to pass the amendment wouldn't have been short.

And since when do you have to be charged with a crime to have committed it? If I steal something and wasn't charged with a crime are you saying I didn't steal it?

Sorry if it bothers you, but the 16th amendment IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITION! None of your false claims or the opinions of all the people in the united states matter on this subject because as I've proven even if the amendment had been legally ratified, the government has no such authority to create it because it derives its power from the people and the people have no such authority to grant to government.

But hey, think whatever you want. I win either way because you're stupidly allowing the government to rob you (nobody has ever provided a distinction between armed robbery and income taxes) while I am living contently and legally by not allowing the government to push me around or to rob me.

Like I said, IRS incompetence; that leads to the "easy pickins" situation. It's no loophole; it's cat and mouse with bureaucrats, with the hope that your particular case doesn't land on the desk of someone who knows the game.

Off the top of my head, I'd guess that by being a part of a group that's doing this, you are putting yourself into a category of much higher visibility. You make small time money, so they don't care; but what's the collective income, I mean, uh, unconstitutionally taxable amount of money that the IRS would consider income, of the entire group? Together you make a bigger prize with much smaller burden of collection of evidence.

And if you think your copy of Black's with its various definitions of "citizen" and whatnot are the secret code words that get you out of jail free, think again. The law doesn't even pretend at that level of consistency. You'll be flipped by the first Judge you run into. If things like the common law and definitions in Black's got people out of trouble, don't you think the lawyers would know about it? Do you think you and your buddies are the first ones to think of this stuff?

As far as the visibility thing goes, we don't send letters to the IRS identifying ourselves as tax protestors or send other red flags like zero returns. We know the law, the procedures of law, and have a team of attorneys and paralegals in our defense.

And I only mentioned blacks or other old dictionaries as a means of showing what various words and legal terms meant in the days of our founders, not as a way to get out of anything.

We know that there's no "silver bullet" to beat the IRS and each situation requires different methods to win. But we haven't failed yet.

You did not respond to my last post, in which I quoted the original intent of the framers of the constitution. Please do so.

I'm not interested in "intent". The supreme court isn't there to determine "intent". Their constitututional duty is to make sure nobody violates the constitution; Not to interpret the constitution; Not to define the constitution; Not to overrule the constitution; And not to allow blatant violations of the constitution such as the Patriot Act, Income Taxation, and a thousand other things.

The duties and powers of the supreme court and all parts of government is defined and limited by the constitution. They may not do anything that isn't specifically listed.

Well, in that case, you're not only disagreeing with 99.9% of America, including Congress and the Supreme Court, you're also disagreeing with the people who wrote the constitution. I'm sorry, but Alexander Hamilton says you are wrong.

Tell me something: when's the last time you were wrong about something?

Everyone is wrong but you.
 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to you every copy of the Constitution we see is wrong. They all have the 16th Amendment in them. The courts are wrong and serve no function. The goverment doesn't have the right to blow it's nose, or anything else.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If you look it up the 16th Amendment is on the books. Leagally ratified or not, it is in effect. You've made it clear that you don't care that what congress, the courts or the people of the US say. So why are you talking to us?

Who's gonna stop 'em? You? Saddam? The French?
Bwahahahahahahaha!

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think Radar has made it pretty obvious that his opinion is more important than anything else. So he'll just tell you they can't as they do whatever they want.