Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Alaska and Hawaii

In the text it states that the legislatures of Florida and Pennsylvania never considered the proposed amendment. Should Alaska and Hawaii not be added to the list? Of course, I know that these two states only obtained statehood decades after 1913, and that as enough states had already ratified the amendment by then, so it is all a moot point, but I think that this should then be mentioned in one way or another. After all, after 36 states had ratified the amendment, everything becomes a moot point, and we also mention the remaining states. Is it the case, that when a territory obtains statehood, it automatically ratifies the amendments that are already on the book? If so, maybe this should be mentioned. As you probably have noticed, I don't know much of the matter, so I put it here on the talk page, and didn't try an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.99.188 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That part of the article is referring to what happened at the time the amendment was before the States for ratification, so Alaska and Hawaii (then being territories) are not relevant. When a State is admitted to the Union, it agrees to comply with the Constitution, but it does not ratify each amendment. Remember, the amendments are as much a part of the Constitution as are the original Articles. By agreeing to comply with it, the new State is referring to all of the Constitution. There's no need for the new State to individually ratify any amendment, because it can't decide to pick and choose with which parts of the Constitution it will comply. The new State either agrees to comply with all of the Constitution or it does not so agree. The latter choice would preclude it being admitted into the Union. SMP0328. (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sixteenth Amendment ratification

The 16th amendment was merely 'declared' ratified in February 1913, it was never ratified by the required number of states.

• 48 states at the time
• 36 must approve for ratification
• The required number was not reached

This can be expanded on further, however the time and effort to do so is pointless if it will just be dismissed as conspiracy. The documents and evidence is available to show which states did/did not correctly approve the amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.70.95 (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. This is a highly fringe view, discussed in the Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments article. It's been considered by the courts and rejected every time, so much so raising as an argument to avoid paying taxes will earn you an automatic penalty. It's only raised by tax protestors and calling it fringe is fairly charitable. There's a See Also link to the tax protestor article, more details don't belong here. See WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE. Ravensfire (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should put up an FAQ for this claim, like what has been done at Talk:Barack Obama. SMP0328. (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not too sure. That was added, in part, because of the media-storm from the initial wave of garbage and you had a fair number of people who would read the FAQ. I don't think we'll have that here - mostly true believers that will not be dissuaded from their holy mission by mere words. Ravensfire (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors Ravensfire and SMP0328 are correct. The argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified is false, and has been debunked in court over and over and over and over and over again. See the applicable article as referenced by editor Ravensfire.

Incidentally, the non-ratification argument is not merely dismissed as "conspiracy." It is dismissed as fraudulent, blatant nonsense. Famspear (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)