Wilson also gave us the 16th Amendment.
REAL AMERICANS DONT WEAR UN BLUE
An Important Example and Lesson on How to Exercise your rights under
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are popularly known as the Bill
of Rights.
Funny thing about most Americans... they have never read the Constitution
nor
the Bill of Rights, yet many of them are quick to remind others what
"rights"
the constitution guarantees them. You don't really need to be a lawyer or
judge or anything like that in order to understand these fine American
documents. If you can read written English, you can understand this stuff.
It can be very interesting, too. For instance...
Here is an Interesting
fun-filled fact:
Prior to 1913, there was no federal income tax because it just wasn't
constitutional. Then, along came the so-called, "16th Amendment!!!"
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax is based
on
the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax
amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. Because of the existence
of
this amendment, the federal government lays claim to the power to collect
this tax from all of us.
THE DISCOVERY
Ordinary people like you and I, wondered about the legality of this 16th
amendment. Investigative research was begun, using the journals of the
various state legislative bodies to find out how these states acted upon the
proposal by Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to permit a federal
income tax law. After review of these records, it was found that serious
problems existed as to whether these states had legally ratified the same
amendment which had been proposed by Congress. When examination of the
records of about 20 states showed that many had not ratified the amendment
and that information regarding the action taken by these States had been
sent
to the U.S. Secretary of State, it was determined that records in
Washington,
D.C. most probably existed to prove the point.
Research was done on the historical records in the National Archives. One
book contained within it, all federal records which had been prepared during
the process of amending the Constitution by the 16th Amendment. This proved
to be an exceptional discovery because those documents revealed that a man
named Philander Chase Knox, the Secretary of State in 1913, was fully aware
that the amendment had not been ratified!!!
After making this important discovery, it was found to also be important to
research the records of all other states which the federal government
claimed
had ratified the amendment. Further investigation was done on the remainder
of the remainder of the states.
It was found that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the
proposal to amend the Constitution in the manner required by law!!!
It makes sense to ordinary people, like you and I, that such a conclusion
obviously meant that the federal government lacked the power to legally
impose and collect the federal income tax. To demonstrate the merits of this
argument, an examination of the evidence is important.
The federal government claims that the State of Kentucky was the second
state
to ratify the amendment, such action taking place on February 8, 1910. But,
the records of the State of Kentucky reveal a far different picture. These
records show that the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the
amendment and then sent that resolution to the Senate in early February,
1910. On February 8, 1910, the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution,
but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed!!! The Kentucky
Senate never did ratify that amendment, but federal officials, being in
possession of documents showing this rejection, fraudulently claimed
otherwise. A second interesting situation involves the State of Oklahoma.
Here, this proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the
language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress.
However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed,
so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to
have
a precisely opposite meaning. After all was settled and done in Oklahoma,
the
Oklahoma Legislature wanted an amendment which meant something entirely
different from that which was proposed by Congress. What happened in
California reveals a comedy of errors. That legislative assembly never
recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by
Congress. However, assuming that a nonexistent vote was taken, whatever
California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. And
many states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of
the amendment proposed by congress, a power that these states did not
possess. The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in
Washington, but this did not deter Philander Knox as he claimed that
Minnesota ratified the amendment regardless of the absence of any
documentation from the State of Minnesota.
Take a look at Article V of the
U.S. Constitution and see for yourself!
Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which
requires that three-fourths of the States ratify any amendment proposed by
Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American Union, so to adopt
any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states. In February 1913,
Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the
amendment, including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But, as previously
shown, Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it,
and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different. If just these 3 states are
excluded from the court of those which ratified, then the amendment was not
legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. But, then
again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the
language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. If the process of
the adoption of the amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny the
amendment was adopted by none.
Today, the federal government pretends that it has all power to tax the
income of everyone, and that the only way to change this system is to vote
for congressmen who promise to modify or, even more unlikely, to repeal
these
laws. Ordinary people like you and I need to know that another alternative
exists, and that it is entirely possible to challenge the very foundation of
this taxing power upon the grounds that the 16th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution was never adopted.
This challenge can be effectively made by exercising your rights under the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Heavy stuff!!!
Taken from writings by Bill Benson, author of the book, "The Law That Never
Was."
thelawthatneverwas.com
Other links on "The Law That Never Was" :
newsmax.com
groups.google.com |
