• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
PatriotBeware!
merica'spoliticallandscapeis riddledwithideologicalpitfallsand snares thatthreaten he unwary.Those who de-pendupon themajor media forper-spectiveand understandingabout hestate of the nation me treated o a dailybarrage ofmisinformationandpropa-gandaparadedas unassailablewisdom.Forexample, themajor media con-stantlypeddlethenotionsthatweHarehelps thepoorbut doesn't create de-pendency,that the hesidenthaspow-ers as"Commandern Chief" to assignU.S. troops to UN command at will,and that"assaultweapons"in thehandsoflaw-abiding citizens consti-tute a danger to thepublicsafety.While Americans whose views theEstablishment confines tothe "farright" of thepoliticalspectrum areless susceptible o themanipulationsof the major media, some dofallpreyto differentmyths, often in the formofmiracle cures for ourpoliticalills.One suchpanaceais term limits,whichhas been embraced by someconservatives as a remedy for con-gressionalsocialism. Othersbelievethat we should abandon helesislativeprocessaltogether and concentrateon nul-lifying the enforcement of unconstitutionallaws through the activism of "fully-in-formed"juries. A few have even concludedthat our situationhasgrownsogravethatpatriotsmust now assume a survivalistprofileby stockpilingfoodand ammuni-tion andorganizing into armed militias.None of the aboveprovidesarealisticsolutionto America'spoliticaland cul-turaldifficulties.Sucha solution can onlybe achieved hrough the creationof a con-stitutionally literate andprincipledelec-
Truth s thepatriot'smost effectiveweapon.
ttAmericansare misledand de-ceived into believing that the'in-come' tax applies to thegeneralpublic....The IRS admits that the6income'tax system isdependentupon voluntary filing of tax re-turns."(TheFact Finder,May 16,1993)The U.S. Internal Revenue Ser-vice doesboast hat it relies upon thevoluntary compliance of most of thepublicwho file returns without beingdirectly hounded bygovernmentagents; it is the only way the IRScould stay within its budget. But thatdoesn't mean there is no mandatoryrequirement;theIRSdoesindeedprosecutecitizens whodon't file. In-come axes,despiteour most desper-ate wishes, arenotvoluntary; theirpaymentis required of allindividu-als(unlessheirincome is lessthanthe exemption amount)residing inthe United StatesunderSection6012of Title 26 0f the u.S. code. whichstates:"Returnswith respect to in-come taxes under subtitle A[govern-ing tax computationslshallbemadeby the following:(lXA)Every indi-vidualhaving for the taxableyeartorate. Mostofthe falsealternativesservegrossncome which equals or exceeds heas distractions ogenuine progress.Yet exemption amount...."Thepenaltyforwhile the above examples constitute a violation of Section 6O12 can befoundfaulty thoughtprocess(termlimits will under Section 7203, which callsforup tomakevoters wise, there are sufficienta$25,000fine and oneyearinprisonfornumbers of activists to stackurieswith an individual "who willfullyfailstopayregularityor to defeat the U.S.govern-such estimatedax or tax, make such re-ment on the battlefield, etc.), there are a turn, keep such records, or supply suchnumber of distractions based upon out- information."right falsehoods and,/or deliberate decep- THB New ANTIRIcAN aslongopposedtions.Followingaresomeofthosetangents the federal income tax, butit should bepatriotsoccasionally face on thepathto re- eliminated through thelegislativeprocessstoring imited constitutionalgovernment.and not civil disobedience.
!oE!Uc
o
THE NEW AMERICAN/FEBRUARY 17, 199725
 
A federalincometax on wageshas consistentlybeenupheldby SupremeCourt.65Ifthe incometax was not imposedtiallya tax uponthepropertyitselfand aupon the incomesof citizensof the directtax in needof apportionment.TheUnited Statesbefore theSixteenth SupremeCourtthrew outthe entire in-AmendmentlbecausetheSupreme cometax lawon the basishatCongressCourtruleditunconstitutionalloand, as couldnotpossiblyhave foreseenheen-the SupremeCourt says, theSixteenthtire burden ofthe incometax beingborneAmendmentdid notchange theunited bywagestheelementofthe tax theCourtStatesConstitution, evidentlytheir in-deemed obe constitutional).corne isstill notsubject to the incomeIn 1915,theSupremeCourt ruled intax."(JohnB. Kotmair,Save-a-PatriotStanton v. BalticMiningCo. that the 16th
Fellowship,Aprit 25,1995)
Amendment"conferredno newoower ofThisstatementdeceptivelyrefersto the taxation...."It isinterestingthat income1895SupremeCourtcase,ollockv.Farm-taxprotestersoften citethe Balticcase,ersLoanand TrustCompany, nwhich an whichupheld the mpositionof the federal1894ncome tax lawwas ruledunconsti- incometaxupon individuals.Thatsametutionalbecauset leviedan unapportioneddecisionwenton to say thatalthough ittax on incomederivedfrom rentsand conferredno newpoweroftaxation, theproperty,and to apost-16thAmendment16th Amendment"simplyprohibitedtheSupremeCourt decision.The U.S.Consti-previousandplenarypowerof incometutionrequireshat"Nocapitation,or other taxation possessedy Congressrom thedirect, axshall be aidunless nproportionbeginningfrom beingtaken outofthe cat-to the censusor enumerationhereinbeforeegory of indirecttaxationto which it in-directedto be taken,"and that all indirectherentlybelonged."taxes"shallbeuniform throughoutthe Inother words,accordingo this rulingUnited States." nthepre-16thAmend-the l6thAmendmentchangedhowthein-ment Pollockcase,he HighCourt ruled cometax wouldbe laid ratherthanthatncomeaxesonlaborandwageswere whethert couldbe laid(whichthe entireindirectatd not inneed of apportionmentSupremeCourt has alwaysagreedwas al-according ocongressional epresentation,ready withinthepowerof Congress).Thebut that when thetax was derivedfrom 16thAmendment,the SupremeCourt hasproperty-relatedncome, likestock divi-consistentlyruled, simplylifted thecon-dends and land rents,the taxwas essen- stitutionalrequirementthatincome taxes26would haveto beapportionedbecausesomeof the proceedsof the taxwouldcomefrom property,and movedthe entiretax intothe categoryof indirecttaxesforconstitutional purposes.TheSupremeCourtunanimouslyruled in Brushaberv.Union PacificRailroadCompany1916):"Itis clearon the faceof thistext[the16thAmendmentlthat itdoes notpurporttoconfer powerto levy incometaxes nage-neric senseanauthorityalreadypos-sessed ndneverquestioned..but that thewholepurposeof theAmendmentwastorelieveall incometaxeswhen imposedfromapportionmentfroma considerationofthe sourcewhence the incomewas de-rived."Individualswho citesuchSupremeCourt caseso claim thatthe incometax isunconstitutionaldespitehe 16th Amend-mentdo so undereither obstinateand in-vincibleignoranceor intentionaldeceit."Wagesor compensation forlaborisnottaxable[underanincometax]."(MediaBypass,April 1996)Wages havealways beenconsideredtaxable income.The firstfederal incometax, leviedin 1862,called forthe tax"uponthe annualgains,profitsor incomeof every personresidingin theUnitedStates,whether derivedfrom any kindofproperty,rents, interest,dividends,sala-ries,or from anyprofession,trade,em-ployment,orvocation carriedon in theUnitedStates or elsewhere,or fromanyothersourcewhatever." Thattax wasunanimouslyupheldby the SupremeCourt inSpringer v.United States1880).As alreadynoted,when the SupremeCourtoverturned the incometax lawof1894because he taxwas unapportioned,the Courtruled that only unapportionedtaxes eviedagainst ncomederived fromrentsand dividendswere unconstitutional,while taxes on incomederived fromlaborwere indirecttaxes and thereforeconsti-tutional.The entirestatutewasvoided be-cause, the HighCourt ruled inPollockv.FarmersnanandTrustCo.,strikingonlyincometaxes derived from property"wouldleavethe burden of thetax to beborne by professions,trades,employ-ments, or vocations;and in thatway whatwas intendedas a tax on capitalwould re-mainin substancea tax on occupationsand labor.We cannot believethat suchwas theintention ofCongress."The currentU.S. Code(Title26,Sec-tion61) defines thegrossncomesubjectto U.S. incometaxation as"allincomeTHENEWAMERICANFEBRUARY7, 1997
 
fromwhatever source derived, including...(1)Compensation or services."Andwages allwithin the boundsof compen-sation for services."[Thepublicrecord] irrefutablyshowsthat notone, but several,egregiousfraudswere committed in thepurportedratificationof the Sixteenth Amend-ment. Thatamendment was. thus. notratifiedat all and anyappearance ofratfficationwhichmayexist has no foun-dation becauseof the fraudscommittedbypartiesinvolved inthe ratificationprocess."(TheLaw ThatNeverWas,VoL II, by Bilt Benson, 1986)The 16thAmendmentwas a direct re-sponse o the 1895SupremeCourt deci-sionin Pollockv.FarmersLoanandTrustCo.The reactionto thatdecisionwas oneof outrageamong PopulistParty agitatorsand theirsympathizerswithin the Demo-cratic Pafty,who browbeat thepublicintoacceptinghe amendment.Therewasittleorganizedoppositionto the ncometax bythe timethe Congress hadsubmittedtheincometax(16th)amendment othe statesfor ratificationin 1909.The amendmentpassedheSenatewithouta single "nay"vote,and only i4opposed he incometaxin the House.The voteswere similarlylopsided nmost state egislatures.Bill Benson'scontentionhat the 16thAmendmentwas neverproperlyratifiedand is thereforeinvalid restson the factthat most of thestateswhich ratifiedthe16th Amendmentdid so by ratifyingreso-lutionswhichvaried slishtlv fromtheamendmentsubmittedby Congress.How-ever,all of the variationsin thestate-passedesolutionsareclearly attributabletogrammaticaloversightsand impropertranscriptionratherthan fraud orany sub-stantivechange nthe amendment. nhistwo-volumework, The LawthatNeverWas, Benson neversuccessfullydemon-strateshat the 16th Amendmentwasfraudulentlyratified; in fact,his researchall butprovesheopposite.Bensondoesn'tevenattempt to contendthat the stateswereunder the impressionthat theywereratifyingsomeamendmentother than theincometax;there was onlyone incometax amendmentsubmittedo the statesbyCongress,andtheissuewaswell knownin state egislativecircles.Theonly interestingcase madeby
THENEW AMERICANFEBRUARY17, 1997
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...