Has the US Constitution been ripped from our hands?

[NovaStorm]

It's unconstitutional ... according to some people. And let's just assume for a minute that you're correct. Don't the "people" have the power to vote for elected officials who will dismantle the IRS (Steve Forbes, among many others?) Of course, there is still no getting around the 16th Amendment which clearly gives Congress the power to implement an income tax. Now, if enough of us disagree with the 16th Amendment, we can change it. Plain and simple. So you are saying you reject the evidence I presented; the video. Can you at least give a date as to when the 16th amendment was ratified so to dispute the IRS agent's comments in the video? Or did you simply nod and smile and pass by the link that I presented as evidence?

Yet apparently not enough Americans are burdened by the IRS and the current tax system (though I do hope this changes.....SOON!!!!) And you call this tyrrany? Have we come so far as a people that when we don't like something, we call it oppression and tyrrany?

So you don't see the IRS as tyranny (tyrannical system) because it is supported by some people of this country, many of which don't understand that it is in fact unconstitutional (16th amendment never being ratified), or don't care? Was the USSR tyrannical? because as I recall, many supported that system and what they did there as well.

As for answering every question all at once as you presented rather than discussion of one point at a time, I have a fear of sound bite discussions, it rarely goes anywhere unless I spend countless hours making long reports which does not guarantee the reader will even view any evidence presented therein (such as that video I linked to). If you are ready to dismiss that the IRS is illegal and unconstitutional (well suited for this forum), 2nd chance brought up a good point worthy of discussion, or was that quickly dismissed already, as well?

But yes, there are many, many more examples, if there were a forum made here just for these lines of topics, the forum could not contain the many thread topics thereof. But the question still stands, do we wait until we realize it is all gone in both deed and word before we react?

[Bernardd]

It's an interesting interview, granted. But I'm wondering what "risk" Joe Bannister is referring to when he says that writing his report placed him at incedible risk. Sure, he lost his job. But wouldn't a tyrranical government lock him up or kill him? This guy is saying whatever he wants and perhaps influencing a great many people, yet the Bush Admin and its Patriot Act refuses to "bump him off." Some tyrrany.

As far as the 16th Amendment is concerned, just because some states used commas instead of semi-colons and vice versa is no reason to dismiss their ratification documents. Sure, you can make the argument that it's fraud, but a few mispelled words and some grammar mistakes is enough to build a conspiracy upon, at least not in my opinion. Furthermore, it's certainly not reason enough to evade paying taxes, at least in my opinion.

But then again, there's proof enough that the 16th Amendment was in fact ratified...legally.

Amendment XVI. \8\

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment

[[Page 34]]
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.
\8\ The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on July 12,
1909, when it passed the House, 44 Cong. Rec. (61st Cong., 1st Sess.)
4390, 4440, 4441, having previously passed the Senate on July 5. Id.,
4121. It appears officially in 36 Stat. 184. Ratification was completed
on February 3, 1913, when the legislature of the thirty-sixth State
(Delaware, Wyoming, or New Mexico) approved the amendment, there being
then 48 States in the Union. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State
Knox certified that this amendment had become a part of the
Constitution. 37 Stat. 1785.
The several state legislatures ratified the Sixteenth Amendment
on the following dates: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8,
1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8,
1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19,
1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington,
January 26, 1911; Montana, January 27, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota,
February 1, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February
11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Kansas, March 2,
1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April
7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected the amendment
at the session begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 16, 1911; New
York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware,
February 3, 1913; Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3,
1913; New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913;
Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having
rejected the amendment on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected
(and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

So you don't see the IRS as tyranny (tyrannical system) because it is supported by some people of this country, many of which don't understand that it is in fact unconstitutional (16th amendment never being ratified), or don't care? Was the USSR tyrannical? because as I recall, many supported that system and what they did there as well.
No, I don't see it as tyrrany. Just because a few people believe the 16th Amendment was never ratified (or properly ratified) is no argument that we live under tyrrany. And I can't believe you're comparing the U.S. to the Soviet Union. How many people did Stalin kill again?

[Bernardd]

As for 2nd Chance's comment: "The constitution has become a novelty. Any man who says "What freedoms have you lost?!" will live to regret those words,"
He/she makes an elegant speech, but it has no substance. Why not just list the freedoms we've lost? Clearly I haven't dismissed this issue since I asked the question in a previous thread.

But yes, there are many, many more examples, if there were a forum made here just for these lines of topics, the forum could not contain the many thread topics thereof. But the question still stands, do we wait until we realize it is all gone in both deed and word before we react?
React to what? There was slavery...and we reacted. Women were denied the vote...and we reacted. Today we're reacting over abortion. We're reacting over education. We're reacting over the southern border. But still, what rights have we lost? What CAN'T we do or change?

[NovaStorm]

It's an interesting interview, granted. But I'm wondering what "risk" Joe Bannister is referring to when he says that writing his report placed him at incedible risk. Sure, he lost his job. But wouldn't a tyrranical government lock him up or kill him? This guy is saying whatever he wants and perhaps influencing a great many people, yet the Bush Admin and its Patriot Act refuses to "bump him off." Some tyrrany. He gets into that in part 3. There are some even within the IRS that support and agree with him. Someone like this cannot... just vanish. Why does it need to result in being bumped off? Is it only illegal when they start killing people? Yet people go to prison etc for a voluntary tax system.

As far as the 16th Amendment is concerned, just because some states used commas instead of semi-colons and vice versa is no reason to dismiss their ratification documents. It's more than that. The law that never was & the cover-up that still is (link) (http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Law-Taxes/+Doc-Law-Taxes-IRS&IncomeTaxAreIllegitimate/IncomeTax-TheLawThatNeverWas&CoverupThatStillIs.htm)

[Ibelieveinjesus]

He gets into that in part 3. There are some even within the IRS that support and agree with him. Someone like this cannot... just vanish. Why does it need to result in being bumped off? Is it only illegal when they start killing people? Yet people go to prison etc for a voluntary tax system.

It's more than that. The law that never was & the cover-up that still is (link) (http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Law-Taxes/+Doc-Law-Taxes-IRS&IncomeTaxAreIllegitimate/IncomeTax-TheLawThatNeverWas&CoverupThatStillIs.htm)

There are a lot of people who are disgruntled, or off the wall, who say alot of things..

I am not aware of any of those States that Ratified the 16th Amendment, objecting to its ratification, or its interpretation. Tax Law is passed by the US Congress, and signed into Law by the President, and recognized, and upheld by the Courts.

Unlike being under tyranny, folks in this Country can still beleive and say about anything they want, and they obviously do, as can be seen on a number of YouTube videos dealing in everything from 9-11 Conspiracies to Aliens...

But I think it is rather clear that Tax Law is both Constitutional, and Legal.

-Ted

[HisAlways]

I don't take these things lightly, but I'd argue that the Gov and the Courts acknowledge the right of habeas corpus many times every day, in both State and Federal Courts.

Where there seems to be an issue is in two areas.. 1) Non US Citizens who are captured and suspected of being Terrorists.. how we treat them, and to what degree Constitutional Protections apply (if at all).. and 2) US Citizens (such as Jose Padilla), who are caught Cooperating, or Conspiring with Foreign Terrorists.

Thankfully, there haven't been a whole lot of examples which fall into the second category, but I concede, it is a more troubling scenario, than the first.

In either situation, however, I don't think the Constitution is being ignored, but there are some complex questions regarding how it applies, if at all, and balancing that against National Security of our Country, and honestly, I think the infringements of our rights that we have seen during this current war, have been extremely minimal.. so minimal that the vast majority of Americans are not even affected.

-Ted
Agreed.......:thumb Great post.

[Bernardd]

Someone like this cannot... just vanish. Why does it need to result in being bumped off? Is it only illegal when they start killing people? Yet people go to prison etc for a voluntary tax system.


People like this disappear under tyrranical regimes. THis man would never last in former the Soviet Union or in Iran today. Yet in America, this man has a platform and a website...AND RIGHTLY SO!! If he believes he is correct, more power to him. Nevertheless, noone from the FBI or any other federal (or state/local) law enforcement will arrest, silence, or terminate him because we are free to speak our minds according to the Bill or Rights.

I read the link you posted and I can understand how some people might see the 16th Amendment as improperly ratified. For instance:
"The word "enumeration" has been changed to "renumeration," and the word "States" in the original has been changed to "states."

Also,

Besides several procedural violations too complex to describe in this article, the following serious problems exist with the above version of the Amendment: The Roman number "XIV" was changed to "16"...

Of course, the ariticle is based on Bill Benson's interpretation of events and he, in recent years, has been "debunked."

"Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913"

Truth: In 1909 there were only 46 states. This is important because it changes the number of states necessary to ratify a new amendment. With 48 states 36 votes were needed. With 46 states only 35 votes. On January 6, 1912, New Mexico was admitted to the Union as the 47th state. On February 14, 1912 Arizona became the 48th state in the union. Since Arizona and New Mexico joined the Union after the amendment was sent for ratification by the states they did not have to vote on ratification.
http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm

Clearly, there is controversy here, but I wouldn't avoid paying taxes and risk jail simply because there is an argument.

Personally, I don't like the income tax and I think it's an unnecessary burden on the American people. Thus, when I vote, it's an important issue for me. That's why I like the idea of a flat tax or a tax on consumption. But a great deal of the country believes that taxes should be raised. They apparently like the income tax the way it is.

Thus, my question still remains: Which rights have we lost? Perhaps there are some. I'm just waiting for a convincing argument.

[NovaStorm]

People like this disappear under tyrranical regimes. THis man would never last in former the Soviet Union or in Iran today. Yet in America, this man has a platform and a website...AND RIGHTLY SO!! If he believes he is correct, more power to him. Nevertheless, noone from the FBI or any other federal (or state/local) law enforcement will arrest, silence, or terminate him because we are free to speak our minds according to the Bill or Rights.

I read the link you posted and I can understand how some people might see the 16th Amendment as improperly ratified. For instance:
"The word "enumeration" has been changed to "renumeration," and the word "States" in the original has been changed to "states."

Also,

Besides several procedural violations too complex to describe in this article, the following serious problems exist with the above version of the Amendment: The Roman number "XIV" was changed to "16"...

Of course, the ariticle is based on Bill Benson's interpretation of events and he, in recent years, has been "debunked."
Some do vanish though, but if all vanished that would raise the red flag. Depends on the severity of the threat. Many debate just who (or what) really killed Kennedy, Lincoln or tried to assassinate Reagan etc. Then there are less notable people that just vanish.


It’s like the frog in the pot. You place a frog into a pot of boiling water, it’ll jump out, but put it into cold water and gradually heat up that pot, he is not aware of his predicament and gets cooked. I see the 16th amendment very much in question, and to heat things up the IRS has recently hired an army of agents to get things really boiling. This is such a system where the findings being right or wrong to start with, you are in need of proving your innocence; guilty until proven innocent. Not a loss to freedom? Maybe not to all but for some it is (those that fall under the hand of the IRS), but this is really to the detriment of all. Maybe you should ask “how does this directly effect me?” rather than what freedoms have we lost. But if it happens to one, it is equivalent to as happening to all.

http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm

Clearly, there is controversy here, but I wouldn't avoid paying taxes and risk jail simply because there is an argument.

Personally, I don't like the income tax and I think it's an unnecessary burden on the American people. Thus, when I vote, it's an important issue for me. That's why I like the idea of a flat tax or a tax on consumption. But a great deal of the country believes that taxes should be raised. They apparently like the income tax the way it is.

Thus, my question still remains: Which rights have we lost? Perhaps there are some. I'm just waiting for a convincing argument.

Well that is interesting, he posted under a forum/email nickname. He gave no source references to his work. I’m trying to track him down (only have an msn email addy from ezboards by a forum that was banned but recovered thanks to Google cache pages) but his participation on the Internet was quite abrupt. I’m always cautious about self=proclaimed “debunkers”, everything that is posted seems to get a claim of being debunked by someone, whoever it may be….

[krw0315]

We lost our original form of government in 1865. The War of Northern Aggression destroyed the concept of a voluntary union of states.

I knew I liked you!... right on the money...:wave

[NovaStorm]

Texas threatened to break off from the Union some years back, I wonder what would have happened if they succeeded.