Before It's News | People Powered News

Thursday, August 23, 2012

The Case against the 16th Amendment

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired
Copyright Aug. 16, 2012 by Gulf1

As a matter of fundamental principle, the means for funding the federal government, obtaining revenue was constricted to excise taxes exclusively for a number of clearly defined reasons.

First, the continuing competitiveness of our fledgling state depended on our being a net productive economy, and excise taxes are the sole means of leveling the playing field, when confronted with long established exporters. Secondly, it ensured those elected to office would find the security of our Nation of greater value than making private connections through politics. Thirdly, it gave us the ability to take the time to consider where our best output would be, allow us to concentrate on our best interests, and remain trading, as others concentrated on their best productive capabilities.

The idea of an income tax was floated many times, but it wasn’t until prohibitionists got into a position of power that it was ever seriously considered. First of all, the constitution demands taxes be “apportioned”, which means equally applied to all who are taxed and income tax had been considered proper to be graduated, according to earnings – ideologically counter to “apportioned”.

It became a reality only because the primary revenue source for the federal government was the Whiskey tax, and the prohibitionists aligned with the graduated tax advocates, and by similar measures to what just occurred with obamacare, the income tax amendment was passed to be ratified, to provide a solid and substantial revenue source for the government absent whiskey taxes, so prohibition had a chance of passing.

Author and Researcher Bill Benson, in “The Law That Never Was,” makes 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. A review of the process in which many of the states purportedly ratified (or didn’t) shows that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted. We should all be aware that in order for the Constitution to be modified, an Amendment must receive ratification by three-fourths of the States, which at the time of the 16th Amendment would have required 36 out of the 48 states. Benson reveals the intricacies of how the ratification process never happened.

When Secretary Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, he had received responses from 42 states and acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire) had rejected it, counting 38 states as having approved it. But did they? Let’s take a look…

• In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words “on income” from the text, so they weren’t even voting on an income tax. When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment; yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

• In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

It should be noted, however, that attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state’s approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the “presumptive conclusion” argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court and admits that Knox could be wrong. We’re down to the magical THIRTY SIX states approving the Amendment. But there’s more… always is, ya know. If only one more state could be shown to have NOT ratified the Amendment legally, it would have been rejected, but Philander Knox was not about to see that happen!

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment’s trend. You’ve probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you’d be right – they didn’t; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. We’re down to 35 states, which in essence SHOULD mean the Amendment did NOT pass by the three-quarters needed. But let’s “spike the football” and destroy the Amendment even further.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement ~ it allows for a cooling off period. It enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it. (See, Douglas, things just never change. They don’t read them NOW either!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal government authority they did not have.

With these facts in mind, and noting this has been recorded, established as fact for the past 99 years, isn’t it about time we do something about this? When we have such a clear and obvious fraud, open for all to see, how can we not set it straight?

(Disclaimer: Statistical information contained in this article are from U. S. government sources and fully available to the public.)

No comments:

Post a Comment