The legality of the Fed and income tax

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These views came up 'off topic' in another thread and so I’m giving the subjects their own thread.[/FONT]

 

I can't think of anything I might add, as the subject was pretty much exhausted on the Ron Paul thread.

 

But to sum up for those who might have missed it, and wish to discuss the issue:

Comment by Anthony Holt on 18 July 2010: 16th Amendment changed nothing!

__________________________________________________

If you look under Article I section 9 of the Constitution, it says “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid.” So, how did the income tax become exempt from this? Now before you claim that the 16th Amendment--which I have already proven was never ratified--offers exemption, you should be made aware of what the Supreme Court had to say about the 16th Amendment:

“The Sixteenth Amendment . . . does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects."
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)

This means that the taxing power that Congress had before the 16th Amendment remained the same after the 16th Amendment. And of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that it wasn't properly ratified in the first place. For info on that, see this:

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy20.htm

__________________________________________

In 1895, the Supreme Court stated that an income tax on wages was Unconstitutional. So in 1895 it was Unconstitutional to tax wages. So, the 16th Amendment--even if it were properly ratified--did not change anything. In other words, can a law declared unconstitutional in 1895 be constitutional in 1913 and beyond? What makes it Constitutional today?

___________________________________________

I also found this from the New York Times to be of much significance in any discussion of the illegality of the Income Tax:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60E1EF9385911738DDDA80A94DD405B8585F0D3

 

of course what theyre doing is illegal, but they can get away with it. our birth certificates basically show that they own us and that they can use us as collateral. we are just another means of income for them...

 

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "collateral damage," doesn't it? Gives a whole new meaning to the term "human resources," too!

 

Interesting... I don't have one of those.

 

interesting... ive thought about creating another identity, its pretty easy to register a new SSN, with the right story, do you have on of those? i just want to fall of the grid, no bank account, credit... are you not in the system?

 

Got a SSN number but no birth certificate... Long story.

 

Come on, Tyrsonswood, I was bumped off a thread for being off topic when I posted this . . .

But to sum up for those who might have missed it, and wish to discuss the issue:

Comment by Anthony Holt on 18 July 2010: 16th Amendment changed nothing!

__________________________________________________

If you look under Article I section 9 of the Constitution, it says “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid.” So, how did the income tax become exempt from this? Now before you claim that the 16th Amendment--which I have already proven was never ratified--offers exemption, you should be made aware of what the Supreme Court had to say about the 16th Amendment:

“The Sixteenth Amendment . . . does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects."
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)

This means that the taxing power that Congress had before the 16th Amendment remained the same after the 16th Amendment. And of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that it wasn't properly ratified in the first place. For info on that, see this:

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy20.htm

__________________________________________

In 1895, the Supreme Court stated that an income tax on wages was Unconstitutional. So in 1895 it was Unconstitutional to tax wages. So, the 16th Amendment--even if it were properly ratified--did not change anything. In other words, can a law declared unconstitutional in 1895 be constitutional in 1913 and beyond? What makes it Constitutional today?

___________________________________________

I also found this from the New York Times to be of much significance in any discussion of the illegality of the Income Tax:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60E1EF9385911738DDDA80A94DD405B8585F0D3

. . . in the wrong thread.

 

Actually, the title of this thread should be "The "'Illegality' of the Fed and Income Tax" since that's what is being asserted here.

 

Even more to the point, we should be talking about the "Federal" income tax.

 

Yes, but I was hoping to have someone explain to me how less profits for the international banksters--via their collection of interest on the nonexistent money they lend to the U.S. Government--is going to make a bad situation worse. Seems counterintuitive to me.

Proponents of the idea that disasterous tragedy awaits humanity when our own earned money remains in our own pockets appear incapable of explaining what they mean when asked about this.

 

The problem is not so much those lending money, but those (the U.S. Government, State and local governments, AND individuals too) borrowing money. A growing number of people have irresponsibly allowed the Federal government to assume responsibility for their needs and wants which continually exceed the means of provision and are content to live their lives on the backs of future generations yet born. The situation cannot and will not be solved by increasing taxes, but can only be fixed by reducing spending and paying off the existing debt. We, meaning all countries whose currencies are nothing more than pieces of paper with numbers written on them, can only put off the inevitable economic collapse by growing the economy through inflation and devaluing our currency for so long.

 

"The problem" is those who lend money to the government who are printing it up out of thin air, and then charging interest on that nonexistent, ill-conceived, counterfeit money when the Congress could and should do it with no interest attached to it. That culprit would be the Federal Reserve.

 

"Live interest free or die."

 

Depends on your definition of death. You have to remember that money was intended to be a medium of exchange.

Central banks are not controlled by elected governments. They're controlled by "pivate interests" from the world of commercial banking. Banks are businesses out to make profits from the interest on the loans they make. They decide who they will lend to. They decide what is produced, where it will be produced, and who will produce it, all on the basis of profitability to them, and not on the basis of what is beneficial to the community. Entire economies are run for the profit of financial institutions. All of us, including governments, are subject to them; this is rarely recognized or acknowledged.

Instead of being supplied interest-free as a means of exchange, our money now comes as a debt owed to bankers, providing them with vast profits, power, and control; the rest of us are saddled with debt. By supplying credit to those who they approve of, and denying it to those they don't approve of, international banksters can create booms or busts, and support or undermine governments.

There is much less risk for them making loans than investing in a business, and interest is payable regardless of the success of the business. If the business fails or can't meet the interest payments, the bank seizes the borrower’s property.

When people borrow, it is very costly to the borrower. They might end up paying back two or three times the sum that was lent to them. The idea that banks lend money that was deposited by other people is misleading; the money is created out of nothing.

 

Storch: I agree with much of what you post, and my comment "Live interest free or die" was simply intended as a play on "Give me Liberty of give me death". I have lived nearly 80 years having borrowed money from a bank only twice in my life, living within my means and sometimes below my means to assure I can provide my needs if times got tough, and now having retired and receiving only a small monthly income.

I support Ron Paul strongly as he appears to be the only candidate who recognizes where changes must occur if future generations are to survive and prosper.

 

removed duplicate post.

 

Sorry for misunderstanding your comment.

I would tell you to live long and prosper, but it sounds like you've done just that already. Not that you don't have many years ahead of you.

 

You wanna know something funny? I actually came onto this forum because I was tired of arguing against other people's ideas concerning politics and "the system." My first love is writing and humor, so I googled humor forums, and this is where I ended up.

I just wanted to have a good time. Now look at me. What a failure I am!

Can a cowboy ever really hang up his guns . . . I mean without the incentive that arthritis and memory loss provides?