quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
ok then here is a curve ball for you guys.,...

If the 16th gave them the authority...then how does article 1 section 8 and 9 fit into the scheme of things?

Oh yeh and it was a result of the decision of the brushaber case where the court said the 16th conferred no new taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The 16th amendment was ratified (by the requisite thirty-six states) on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. Six other states ratified the amendment bringing the total to 42. Three states did not ratify the amendment, these were Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

well the guy in the interview has proven with certified documents from the government that it was not.

Three other states did not address the amendment, these were Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida.

The information is readily available online or any book dealing with the constitution or a high school civics text book.

However the information you get at the book store does not match the "record".


As far as common law is concerned, ANY case heard before any court is still subject to appeal at the level of the Supreme Court.

The common law system allows for appeal under the rules of common law, which means that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Any decision rendered by any court can be overturned by a court of appeals if the case does not meet all the standards of common law.

Ok so how does that tie in with this?

U.S. Constitution: Seventh Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

quote:

Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (also called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

ok then here is a curve ball for you guys.,...

If the 16th gave them the authority...then how does article 1 section 8 and 9 fit into the scheme of things?

You do understand that the purpose of an Amendment is to modify the Constitution? That the 16th Amendment supersedes anything prior to it? So the 16th Amendment would take precedence over Article 1, Section 8 & Section 9.

Specifically the 16th Amendment:

"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."

replaces this section in Article 1, Section 9:

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Maybe I'm missing something here. What's the sticking point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

An amendment is a tool to change or alter the original document, either by adding a point not covered, or amending and changing an article contained in the original document.


This fact is covered in any American High School, in some cases in both Middle and High School. I had to take American History and Civics (the study of government) in alternating years from my 7th grade year through graduation. These were both required by the state and local school boards and for college prep curriculum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


First of all, I said TEXT BOOKS as provided in American High Schools, Colleges and Universities. I would suggest that you read for yourself the entire "proof" as defined by this individual. The Amendment was ratified, and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

So you are saying that the books in high school and the supreme court who has never travelled from state to state or seen these 17000 certified documents knows what they are talking about?  They are looking at the federal record of one man.. not the records of the several states.

I will put my money on the record of the several states than that of one man who declared it ratified and obviously fudged the federal books.

Of course he could not get to all those state ledgers because he did not have access to change or fudge them.

AND, the seventh amendment does NOT eliminate appeal, which is available to anyone in civil and criminal cases.

Right it does not in the federal legislative courts trying corporate cases

You really should read the definition of common law.

quote:

Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (also called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action.

Well you see they dont really tell you the whole story now do they?

This means that judges set precedent, which can be appealed all the way to the supreme court. If not, we would have never had the famous Miranda Warning as read to a person being arrested. A judge set the precedent, which was overturned on an appeal, finally being settled by the supreme court. All of which your statement regarding the seventh amendment would have been illegal and unconstitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

You do understand that the purpose of an Amendment is to modify the Constitution? That the 16th Amendment supersedes anything prior to it? So the 16th Amendment would take precedence over Article 1, Section 8 & Section 9...

Maybe I'm missing something here. What's the sticking point?

where does it say that it nullifies art 1 sec 8 and 9?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
ok so apparently you do not know that thee only way art 1 sec 8 and 9 can be amended is if they are first repealed.

Just because it is called an amendment does not mean it repealed anything unless there is a repeal statement....

It is a common mistake in the way people think because it is not taught in high schools and whatever other institutions of lessor education are out there.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
Haven't those ideas been disproven time and time again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Great interview not only showing that the 16th was a fraud, (the 14th was too but this one is about the 16th), and also of the way conspiracies happen and why you rarely hear about  any of them....  Funny how these guys have a streak of conscience and blow the whistle on the perps!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Great interview not only showing that the 16th was a fraud, (the 14th was too but this one is about the 16th), and also of the way conspiracies happen and why you rarely hear about  any of them....  Funny how these guys have a streak of conscience and blow the whistle on the perps!

What is funny is how we never seem to see these theories about the 2nd Amendment- how come we don't see all these grainy photocopies of documents that purport to show how the 2nd Amendment is a fraud, and that there really is no right to own guns?

Or maybe all it needs is for someone to start the ball rolling- like what if I started an Internet rumor that all of the Founding Fathers were actually gay? or even better, gay Muslims?

What the MSM DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!!!
ALL THE FOUNDING FATHERS WE HOMOSEXUAL MOOSLIMS!!
AMERICA IS ACTUALLY A HOMO MOOSLIM COUNTRY!!!!

pardon me, I am off to register the domain name...
www.america_the_homo_allahu_akbar.com

Expect to see this posted on Newsmax soon...

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

You do understand that the purpose of an Amendment is to modify the Constitution? That the 16th Amendment supersedes anything prior to it?
So the 16th Amendment would take precedence over Article 1, Section 8 & Section 9...

Maybe I'm missing something here. What's the sticking point?

where does it say that it nullifies art 1 sec 8 and 9?

It doesn't have to state it, nor does it nullify the entirety of Article 1, Sections 8 & 9.

It does not even nullify part of it...  They must repeal and state it as such for it to be out of there...

First repeal the part parts or whole thing then amend to xxxyyyyzzzz.  Thats the way its done and if it is not it is a fraud.

Then when you think about it how these little details completely change the way you interpret the constitution.....

It takes precedence over them where it conflicts with them, and I specifically listed the exact sentence it conflicted with.

Nope not at all.

I still don't see what you're hung up on. In the 16th Amendment Congress was given the power to levy a direct income tax apportioned however it saw fit.

Right and who would be foolish enough to give them the authority to tax people right out of their own homes as they are doing today?

Any line in any part of the Constitution or the prior Amendments that prevented this would have been negated. If a later Amendment retracted or modified this power, it would take precedence over the 16th Amendment.

No an amendment to the constitution is an amendment to the document as a whole, changing something in it.  They cannot have one part negate another.  Thats like saying yes but no.


I'm not following your arguement. Are you saying that the Federal government cannot levy an income tax?

No they can levy an income tax, that is not what I am saying.  They cannot levy an income tax within the republic sovereign states.  Only the columbia and federal territories etc.

Are you saying that some part of Article 1, Section 8 or 9 specifically prevents this in some way that is not covered by the 16th Amendment? Lay it out for me, please.

Well jurisdiction prevents it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
ok so apparently you do not know that thee only way art 1 sec 8 and 9 can be amended is if they are first repealed.

Just because it is called an amendment does not mean it repealed anything unless there is a repeal statement....

It is a common mistake in the way people think because it is not taught in high schools and whatever other institutions of lessor education are out there.....

Please point out to me what the basis is for the concept that an Amendment must repeal an entire Article of the Constitution before it can take effect. When the Founding Fathers passed the 12th Amendment (which changes the way in which electors vote for the President) they did not repeal Article 2 of the Constitution, it simply changed one paragraph of that Article. Following your thesis than an Article cannot be Amended unless it is repealed, the  vast majority of the Amendments to the Constitution would be invalid.

*Goes to read the section on amending the Constitution*

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

You do understand that the purpose of an Amendment is to modify the Constitution? That the 16th Amendment supersedes anything prior to it?

No it does not.... Only if it or some part of it was repealed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
So the 16th Amendment would take precedence over Article 1, Section 8 & Section 9...

No it did nothing to change art 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
It takes precedence over them where it conflicts with them, and I specifically listed the exact sentence it conflicted with.

Nope not at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

sorry its just the way its done man... 

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

sorry its just the way its done man... 

Actually, I don't believe it is done that way. It can be done that way but the fact that something is sufficient doesn't mean that it is necessary.

Aside from the single example of the 21st Amendment (which is fairly unique since it's the only amendment passed by conventions in each state rather than ratification by the state legislatures - making it an anomaly), do you have any clause of the Constitution, Federal law or legal reference that states that a section of the Constitution must be repealed prior to amending it? There are numerous amendments that radically change things without repealing them - such as the popular election of senators. So that amendment (the 17th), as an example, is invalid and we've been incorrectly electing senators since 1913? So every law passed since 1913 is invalid since a proper senate hasn't been in session since then?

That's only one example of many. I think your argument is based on a false premise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
Actually, I don't believe it is done that way. It can be done that way but the fact that something is sufficient doesn't mean that it is necessary.

Aside from the single example of the 21st Amendment (which is fairly unique since it's the only amendment passed by conventions in each state rather than ratification by the state legislatures - making it an anomaly), do you have any clause of the Constitution, Federal law or legal reference that states that a section of the Constitution must be repealed prior to amending it? There are numerous amendments that radically change things without repealing them - such as the popular election of senators. So that amendment (the 17th), as an example, is invalid and we've been incorrectly electing senators since 1913? So every law passed since 1913 is invalid since a proper senate hasn't been in session since then?

That's only one example of many. I think your argument is based on a false premise.

well I dont have this all at my fingertips but....  in an effort to give you something to wrap your mind around if you enjoy con issues.....  you will not find these descrepancies in the organic constitution aka pre 10th....11th somewhere in there.... 1792 circa.... but all the problem comes in the 14th and after....

Better sit down...

After and including the 14th was the change in government and the shift over to the corporate constitution which is a major change in government.

The organic is the constitution "for" and the corporate is the constitution "of".

Constitution for the United
States of America A Adopted July 2, 1788
In effect March 4, 1789 The Preamble

---

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, 1




The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

well to answer that takes me in much deeper than I am willing to spend the time explaining.

Basically it was a shift in government from organic de jure to corporate as can be seen by its change.

Each version has its own set of rules, the latter being unauthorized in its entirety.. and I will leave it at that before I wind up planted here for a week going every detail.

Best is just to take what I said and research it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

...well it will be a ponderous event come April 15th- you know to see what happens.  At some point- I would think they will ditch the holiday.