A hearing was held on Saturday, May 25, 1985. At that time
defendants introduced the testimony of William Benson, co-author of the
book, The Law That Never Was (1985). Mr. Benson testified that he had
researched the legislative history of the sixteenth amendment and had
discovered that in the ratification process only four states had passed
resolutions that quoted absolutely and accurately the sixteenth amendment
as proposed by Congress. All the other states which had allegedly passed
the amendment had in fact passed resolutions that in one or more ways
differed from the language of the Congressional resolution.
It is defendants' contention that Philander Knox, then Secretary
of State, was aware of the differences between the Congressional and the
state versions of the proposed amendment, but that he nevertheless
certified the amendment as having been ratified. This action, defendants
contend, was in violation of the law, and rendered void the certification
process.
The matter of the ratification of the sixteenth amendment as set
forth by the defendants is one of first impression. It has never been
before any appellate court of our nation.
In support of their contentions defendants introduced copies of
what Mr. Benson testified were certified documents he had obtained from
the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and copies of certified
documents he had obtained from eight of the forty-eight states he had
visited during his research. Over the objection of the government, which
had never had an opportunity to review the voluminous documents, the Court
agreed to provisionally admit the documents into evidence.
The documents illustrate that Secretary of State Philander Knox
was aware in 1913 that the resolutions passed by the various states were
not in every particular identical to the resolution adopted by Congress.
Philander Knox nevertheless certified that thirty-six states had ratified
the amendment. Some of the variances noted by Mr. Benson were the use of
the word "sources" instead of "source," the word "levy" instead of "lay,"
the word "income" instead of "incomes," and differences in capitalization
and punctuation. Mr. Benson presented evidence that Minnesota did not
provide a copy of the resolution it passed, even though the state of
Wyoming was specifically required to do so. He also presented evidence
that the state of Kentucky had never properly ratified the sixteenth
amendment.
Defendants have not, in either their initial motion or in their
motion for reconsideration, asserted any authority for their contention
that state resolutions are invalid if they do not exactly mirror in every
particular the amendment as proposed by Congress. Mr. Benson testified
that he was aware of no constitutional provision, no statute, and no cases
which state that errors in punctuation render an attempted ratification
null and void. Defendants' only authority for their assertion that the
ratification attempts were invalid is found in a Library of Congress
Congressional Research Service publication dated April 18, 1980. That
publication, according to defendant, states that the joint resolution must
contain in full the exact language of the proposed amendment, and that it
must contain a clear, unequivocal ratification clause. Defendants have
offered no evidence that such a publication is binding on this Court at
the present time, or on Philander Knox in 1913.
apfn.org
I'm not sure that's the only argument against it, though. |
