Income Tax on Personal Labor is Unconstitutional

[Burroughs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCPLOGftFuw

 

[Bible_Belt]

Wesley Snipes agrees. That's why he went to jail.

 

[Burroughs]

Wesley Snipes agrees. That's why he went to jail.

It should tell you something that one can be put in jail for refusing something the constitution specifically forbids

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's an ethics violation for an attorney to make the "income tax is unconstitutional" argument, even if that is what a client wants. There's an ethics rule that says you are not representing the client's best interest by making arguments that have no chance of success.

It reminds me of jury nullification, which is a jury's right to refuse to convict someone, basically just because they don't want to. The few instances of it happening have been for non-violent drug crimes, or sometimes the murder of a serial pedophile. Every jury has that right, but no one is allowed to tell them. If a lawyer tells them in court, that's felony contempt of court. And if anyone tells them outside of court, that's felony jury tampering. Both would result in getting a new jury, so as to make sure that particular Constitutional right remained a secret.

 

[Burroughs]

It's an ethics violation for an attorney to make the "income tax is unconstitutional" argument, even if that is what a client wants. There's an ethics rule that says you are not representing the client's best interest by making arguments that have no chance of success.

Of course its an 'ethics violation' :crackup: you can't give slaves the keys to their cells..income tax is robbery by the elite banks imposed on the American population through usurious debt simple and plain...all income from income tax goes DIRECTLY to fund bank debts not for school or infrastructure as most believe...the IRS is essentially a white gloved SS extraction agency with no legal foundation and everyone looks the otherway...

 

[scrouds]

I always thought the 16th amendment was written very clearly.

"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."

 

[Burroughs]

The 16th Amendment only applies to a tax on corporate incomes not requiring apportionment! If a tax on your income requires apportionment, then it it not subject to the 16th Amendment tax.

Is this just semantics? Or is that what it really says?

To understand this clearly, we need to go back to the Constitution.

In Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 it says:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers,..."

And: Article 1 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 defense and general welfare of the United States: But all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Since the income tax is NOT presently collected as a direct tax with apportionment, then it must still be an indirect tax! As we learned earlier, all direct taxes must be apportioned, and all indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excises) must be uniform. These requirements in the Constitution have never been amended, despite the 16th Amendment. These are the constitutional requirements!

Again, let's rely on the Supreme Court to straighten it out for us.

In 1920, the Supreme Court said:
Eisner vs Macomber 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920). "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."

But, before this, in 1916, there were two landmark Supreme Court cases that also helped to clear up the confusion. The first was:

Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co 240 U.S. 1 at 10-11 (1916).
It states "The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be the subject of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, but it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes , and thus it would come to pass, that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax, not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographic uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one State or States, than was levied in another State or States. This result, instead of simplifying the situation, and making clear the limitation on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion." ..."

 

[scrouds]

Yeah they usually make sure to pick dumb jury members so that they don't try and think for themselves. voir dire is the name of the process they use to ensure only simpletons make it on the jury.

 

[zekko]

Kind of makes you ask, just how free are we again?

Yeah, remember back in school when they told you this was a free country? That was all bullsh!t. The US imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other country. This country has wiped its @ss with the constitution long ago.

The tax that really bothers me is the property tax. It's basically forcing us to pay rent to the state on property that we supposedly own.

 

[Burroughs]

I don't know about the income tax being unconstitutional. I do think it's a disgusting practice and should be abolished. The Obamacare tax is FOR SURE unconstitutional.

Read my post above... it is heavy reading but it outlines the issues very well.

This is one of the most critical problems today..in a republic (that is what we were founded to be not a democracy) the citizenry must have a high level of base cognition...

that cognition is laughably absent today....

everyone must learn to read the law...everyone....the fact that we have sanctioned lawyers to be the high priests of state is a gigantic perversion...lawyers only loyalty is to the bar..not to the citizen.

comprehension of the deep corners of the law is essentially...you start probing into this you realize....there is no provision to tax personal income...never has....the income tax is an extension of ROOSEVELT'S WAR TAX THAT NEVER WENT AWAY...

 

[Bokanovsky]

Yeah they usually make sure to pick dumb jury members so that they don't try and think for themselves. voir dire is the name of the process they use to ensure only simpletons make it on the jury.

No, deliberations between jurors are secret. The whole purpose of the deliberation process is to give jurors the opportunity to discuss the case and reach a common decision.

The problem with the jury system is that it often boils down to the lowest common denominator. Anyone who has formal legal training (i.e. lawyers, judges, law students, sometimes even paralegals) are automatically exempt from jury duty. On top of that, many working people try to avoid jury duty because it's a pain in the ass and can interfere with your career. As a result, juries often include disproportionate numbers of housewives, the unemployed/underemployed, etc. These people are often not the smartest tool in the shed, so you get results like the OJ Simpson acquittal.

 

[Bible_Belt]

What if a Jury member informed the other Jury members during deliberation? Is there anything the court can do to that person?

They ask in the jury questionnaire if you have any views about the law and if you will agree to follow instructions. There was a similar case detailed in this link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2899/whats-the-story-on-jury-nullification The defendant got charged with contempt, convicted, and then it was eventually overturned on appeal.

That link also quotes the 1895 Supreme Court case of Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, where the court said:
Public and private safety alike would be in peril if the principle be established that juries in criminal cases may, of right, disregard the law as expounded to them by the court, and become a law unto themselves.

 

[Burroughs]

Legal realism is the worst. .

Indeed it is.

To follow legal realism to its frightening conclusion soldiers may as well round up the poor and middle class and put them in internment camps as they offer little benefit to the elite who see them as excess mouths to feed and a labor class that is no longer needed to run the world.

uhhhhh wait a minute :nervous:

Of course as long as the poor and middle class are pacified by bread and circuses....football, porn, dominoes pizza, the kardashians, will smith, miley cyrus, Facebook, Twitter and other assorted faggotry they will never realize until too late they are being led to the gas chambers

 

[Deep Dish]

Bible_Belt:
It reminds me of jury nullification, which is a jury's right to refuse to convict someone, basically just because they don't want to. The few instances of it happening have been for non-violent drug crimes, or sometimes the murder of a serial pedophile. Every jury has that right, but no one is allowed to tell them. If a lawyer tells them in court, that's felony contempt of court. And if anyone tells them outside of court, that's felony jury tampering.

In an individual case. However, if you stand outside of court and indicriminately pass out pamplets on jury nullification to everybody and anybody, hopeful of reaching jurors but not targeting any juror in an exact case, that is okay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/n...jury-nullification-advocate-is-dismissed.html

 

[Poonani Maker]

What if? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBO02pkPUmQ

another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwkG2C5sAc

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgGlFlVVhVQ You're fired!

 

[Chandler]

Not Eating Before a Workout, Waiting Too Long After Exercise to Eat,
Replacing Meals with Energy Bars or Replacement Drinks, Eating Too Much Protein and Not Enough Carbs
Trusting Dietary Supplements Labels and Claims....

 

[Leporello]

Take this to the Supreme Court and see how far you get.

What's 'constitutional' is whatever the courts say it is - not what you think is right.

 

[backbreaker]

Wrong. Was it Constitutional when the Court said black people weren't human?

lol technically speaking yeah it was constitutional.

what's right and what's constitutional are not necessarily one in the same. but you can't make the argument that slavery was unconstitutional because for a very long time it was.

It only became unconstitutional once they passed the 13th amendment, meaning that per the original constitutions, slavery was in fact, constitutional.

 

[backbreaker]

You're right that slavery was constitutional. However, the specific case I am referring to(Dredd Scott) said that black people are not "persons" under the Constitution and therefore can't be citizens that have standing and rights under the Constitution. Which was totally wrong of course because there were many free blacks in the colonies before and after the ratification of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

still i don't think you are correct.

Black people did not have all the rights granted to free whites. they couldn't own land, they couldn't vote, and they counted as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes

 

[Leporello]

Slaves counted as 3/5 not blacks.

From the dissent in Scott, Justice Curtis:



Furthermore:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZD1.html

Ah but you see - that was the dissent, meaning that the majority upheld the Fugitive Slave Act, ipso facto making it constitutional.