Jump to content

Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mateo SA (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 22 September 2009 (→‎Supreme Court rulings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk from article

There are some severe errors in this article and I don't know how to involve myself in editing or rewriting this article. This article is contrary to what the supreme court stated in at least two landmark cases after the ratification of the income tax. The supreme court stated that taxes on income have been and continued to be excise taxes. The supreme court also stated that the 16th amendment did not alter the supreme court's decision. Are we educating people or carrying out propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7ensnakes (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely false. However, if you can provide reliable sources for your statements (i.e., not tax protester web sites), we'll consider adjusting the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Se7ensnakes is misreading this case. The Congress already had the authority to pass, and enforce, an income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment simply removed the major hurdles which had been recognized in the Pollock decision. SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no errors in the article. Famspear (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court did not state directly that the 16th amendment did not affect the 1895 pollock decision. The Supreme Court did not state that indirectly, either. This has been covered over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error of history: Under the “Ratification process” heading it says “Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico.” The IRS website says it was Wyoming on February 3, 1913 that made 36 out of 48 states (3/4 majority). The link to the IRS site is: http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html Who is correct, the IRS or Wikipedia? I understand it was February 3, 1913 for both states (also Delaware ratified was on February 3, 1913), but it would have to come down to what time the three states (Delaware, Wyoming, New Mexico) passed their ratification of the 16th amendment. I did not make any changes to wiki’s page but this needs to be resolved. -DRW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.25.173 (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. According to the source in the article, Delaware is the 36th State to ratify. According to the IRS website, Wyoming is #36. According to the body of the article, New Mexico is the winner.
For now, I'm changing it to Delaware, because that is consistent with the source currently provided in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decision to go with Delaware and stay in line with the U.S. Government Printing Office source in the article. I will do some more research and find out the time of day each state (Delaware, New Mexico, Wyoming) ratified the 16th amendment (this may take a while). I would love to email the IRS and tell them they are wrong on an important factual point in their agency’s history. -DRW

I have a few questions, if I may. Question one would be why are "tax protester" websites a source of unreliable information? My other question is why is having an idea, evidence to the contrary, or in general, going against the status quo viewed these days as being "conspiracy theorist", spurious, unpersuasive, frivolous, or all these things? I mean the entire United States and written constitution was founded by some of the most brilliant minds in history. And every single one of them were anti-establishment, against the status quo. Why is everyone and everything these days trying to suppress the idea, the spirit of rising against those whom wish to be your masters? I'd like to ask you, where you are getting your information from? Are you getting your information from a pro-government, bias source? Are you getting your information from government approved textbooks or other government approved primary sources? I'd also like to ask, do the donations have anything to do with the information you put on your pages? In other words, like a majority of American political figures, can your opinions be bought and sold? - Threesixx

"Tax protester" websites are unreliable, because they are wrong, as matter of logic, and as a matter of law. No real court has ever found that a "tax protester" argument was legally valid. (You may find some exceptions of fake courts or courts clearly without jurisdiction.)
Your other questions are not relevant to this article, as well as the premises being false. For example, the founders were not "anti-establishment"; most of them just wanted to become the establishment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to respectfully disagree on that. I don't know if your in the United States or not, I've noticed that a lot other countries have more of an understanding of what goes on in the USA than most brainwashed Americas do, unfortunately. However the founding fathers of the United States of America, and the many men and women that gave their lives fighting for the Independence of this nation, all wanted the same thing, which was freedom from the status quo, freedom from the Monarchy establishment. It was once said, "When the government fears the people, that’s liberty, when the people fear the government, that’s tyranny." They wanted this country to be as close to anarchy as possible, in a civilized sense, and in comparison to the former monarchy government, they were all anti-establishment. They wanted the right to say and write what they wanted, when they wanted. They wanted the right to worship how they wanted, when they wanted, or even not at all. These "crazy ideas" that went against the status quo, and were thought to be anti-establishment at the time, as well as blasphemies, could literally get your head cut off... or worse.

But the main thing the founding fathers wanted for America was the freedom to make and distribute its own currency as Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "The refusal of King George the 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution." Thomas Jefferson wrote, "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. .I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."

From the last quotes, you can clearly see his views of the establishment of a central banking system, so in this sense as well, his views are indeed anti-establishment or against the status quo when compared to the previous ruler and laws. - threesixx

Dear threesixx: Let's keep the discussion on this talk page limited to the topic of improving this particular article. This is not a forum for discussing the things you are discussing. Thanks, Famspear (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To answer your on-topic question, tax protester web sites not reliable sources of information on what the law is. The views of tax protesters not only represent an extreme fringe position, those view represent a position that has been rejected in court every single time. Therefore, for purposes of an article such as this one -- on what the law is -- tax protesters are simply not reliable. In addition to the problem of Verifiability for tax protester material, we have the problem of Neutral Point of View. And Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia does not mean "balancing" or straining to provide "equal weight" to fringe positions. Not one single tax protester argument has ever been upheld in any court in history. Not even once. Tax protester web sites might be acceptable sources for stating what the tax protester arguments are, but not for stating what the law actually is. By definition, tax protester arguments are legally frivolous, and the tax protester community is by and large engaged in criminal activity -- the evasion of federal income taxes, willful failure to file tax returns, willful failure to pay, etc., etc. Wikipedia has a whole series of articles on tax protesters and tax protester arguments. Famspear (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
threesixx, can you give uis a source for that Franklin quote? All I find googling it is ipse dixit from tax protester websites, books, and comments.Sifind (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court rulings

Yes sir, and I will keep the discussion to the topic at hand. I have here at this website [1], which I will add, is sponsored by the United States Senate, and is on the United States Government Printing Office website. I would also like to add that this information is not under any copyrights law, neither foreign nor domestic. This is public information and can shared as such.

Basically this website contains the United States' Supreme Court Ruling for these cases you've posted on the article page of the subject at hand. According to the United States' Senate sponsored website, the Supreme Court conceded that taxes on incomes from "trades, vocations, employments, or professions" levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was VOIDED on the ground that CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED to permit the entire "burden of the tax to be borne by trades, vocations, employments, or professions" after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635.

So what that means is the Congress passed the 16th amendment, but didn't want it to apply to the common citizen of the United States, which is why they VOIDED the statute in its ENTIRETY because they didn't want me to go to work and be taxed.

The supreme court then proceeded in other cases referencing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. 240 U.S. 1, 18-19 of the year 1916 and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 also in 1916, the United States Supreme Court wrote, "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which in inherently belonged."

What is indirect taxation? An example of an indirect tax would be the cigarette tax. If you want to smoke, but don't want to pay the tax on cigarettes, then grow you own tobacco. By definition, indirect tax, is clearly a voluntary tax. And according the the United States Senate sponsored website, the United States Supreme Court and United States Congress CLEARLY defined the "personal income" for everyday people, like you and I, completely VOLUNTARY. However, corporations, stocks, interest earnings is another story. Not only that, but the 16th Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, said that Congress is PROHIBITED from taking the income tax out of the category of indirect taxation.

Two years later the Supreme Court decided Eisner v. Macomber, and the controversy which that decision precipitated still endures. Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment in the earlier cases, that the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to correct the "error" committed in the Pollock case and to restore the income taxation to "the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged," Justice Pitney delivered this opinion in the Eisner case.

The United States Supreme Court determines the laws and the constitutionality of the laws in question. Judging by the constitution, the Supreme Court Justices have said the "income Tax" is indeed an indirect tax. And indirect taxation is indeed a VOLUNTARY tax.

- Threesixx

There's no truth to your interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings, although that site (not sponsored by the US Senate, as you claim, but to GPO, an agency in the executive branch) seems to have an accurate statement of the ruling; nor would it be relevant to this article if it were accurate. Your descriptions are contradicted by at least 3 sections of the Tax Protester FAQ, which I urge you to read. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I challenge you to go to that website which is www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html Then I challenge you to read the information on the site. Then I challenge you to scroll all the way to the bottom where it reads "This document is sponsored BY the UNITED STATES SENATE on the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE web site. Then I challenge you to click the link that reads "UNITED STATES SENATE" and I guarantee you it will take you to the United States Senate website which is http://www.senate.gov/ Then I challenge you to got back to the www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html Then I challenge you to click the link UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE link. Where it takes you to the Government Printing Office website, which is also a .gov site. In case you haven't realized, a .gov website is a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED website. The hint is the .gov part.

Now, if anymore authentication is needed... then your one of the people who are obviously never wrong about anything, even when authenticated evidence to the contrary is presented right in front of your face.

-Threesixx

Well, it's possible that the GPO is an office of the US Senate, but it seemed to be an executive function. It's also possible that the Senate sponsors the web site, not the GPO. That doesn't effect the fact that your interpretation of the ruling is incorrect, and would be inappropriate for this article even if it were correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point sir, and it is a valid one. However, the foundation of my interpretations, or arguments, are quotes in the website from the Supreme Court Justices themselves. Unfortunately it doesn't quote every single Justice, it does however quote Justice Mahlon Pitney who was in office March 18, 1912–December 31, 1922.

Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment in the earlier cases, i.e., that the purpose of the Amendment was to correct the "error" committed in the Pollock case and to restore income taxation to "the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged," Justice Pitney, who delivered the opinion in the Eisner case, indicated that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was merely to "remove the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income."

Case referencing: Eisner v. Macomber , 252 U.S. 189 in 1920

Also something else I feel is relevant to the 16th amendment I would like to add. According to the website the opinion was, "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply PROHIBITED the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."

Case Referencing: Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 in 1911 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road, 220 U.S. 1 in 1916 Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 103 in 1916 Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 in 1916

-Threesixx

Dear Threesixx: You are simply repeating the same old tax protester arguments. All this has been re-hashed over and over again here in Wikipedia. I would suggest that you read the following articles and the related talk pages:
Tax protester (United States)
Tax protester arguments
Tax protester constitutional arguments
Tax protester statutory arguments
These articles contain links to other related articles in Wikipedia.
You obviously have been reading tax protester literature, as evidenced by your citations to the Flint case, the Brushaber case, the Eisner v. Macomber case, the Stanton case, the Tyee Realty case, and so on. These are dead giveaways. You need to understand that all this has been thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. These cases do NOT contain the rulings you think they contain. Re-read the quotes and think about what they mean. Unless you can provide something new (and you have not, so far), it would be more productive for you to read all the relevant Wikipedia articles before jumping in head first.
Wikipedia is not the proper place to foment tax protester arguments. Positing tax protester arguments in Wikipedia is the rough equivalent of arguing, before a group of scientists, that The Moon is made of green cheese. We've seen it all before. You have to understand that some Wikipedia editors have many years of experience dealing with tax protester arguments.
Please review the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.
By the way, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) is indeed an agency of the Legislative Branch, under Congress (it's one of the few agencies that is not in the Executive Branch). Wikipedia has rules about how to use these and other source materials correctly. None of the materials you cited stand for any tax protester argument. In fact, no tax protester argument has ever been accepted in any of the cases you cited. Not even one. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Famspear, I have not read any tax protester arguements. I was doing research on a project for my American History class and stumbled upon this Government website. I'm not saying the tax protesters are right, and I'm not saying Wikipedia is right. I'm simply trying to be a contributing member of Wikipedia, and get this authenticated information from the United States Government added to the page. -Threesixx

Dear Threesixx: Again, I would suggest that you review the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, especially those on Original Research. Yours, Famspear (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Famspear, I understand sir, and that I will do. I would like to, however, motion a request. And that request is, on the article page of the sixteenth amendment, would you please allow me to link three websites for not only myself, but for anyone interested in this fascinating topic, under both "external links, and see also" or allow me to create another header titled "other sources, or A Government Source." Each of the three pages are owned and operated by the United States Government under the title United States Government Printing Office, or GPO. The links of these websites, if you choose to allow, are as follows:

www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution

www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html

And last, but not least a link to a PDF file with the history of the Sixteenth Amendment as per United States Government Printing Office website.

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=624354279098+6+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Will you please allow me to do that? -Threesixx

Dear Threesixx: My main concern is not so much the links as it is that the text in the Wikipedia article should not violate one of the Wikipedia rules or guidelines. Another editor might have a slightly different emphasis. I am just one Wikipedia editor, and I have no special Wikipedia authority (that would be different from the "authority" of any other editor) to either "allow" you or "not allow" you to add a link, etc. If you want to add some links, I or other editors might or might not remove the links, depending on how they are used in the article. By the way, the last link you posted above does not seem to be working.
Bottom line: I would like for us to hear input and ideas from editor Arthur Rubin and other editors who watch this article. Famspear (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history link above at the GPO looks reasonable on its face, although it's also misquoted by tax protesters. For example, the footnote reading "…Congress never intended to permit the entire 'burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'" is often misinterpreted by such people as "Congress never intended to permit (the income due to) "professions, trades, employments, or vocations" to be taxed.
The PDF doesn't work for me. Perhaps it's a session-only link? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the question as to whether the 16th Amendment defines income tax as being indirect, or whether it separately exempts the income tax from the proportionality requirement, has been considered by the Supreme Court, and ruled to be moot. That's dicta, but so is, as far as I can tell, the "indirect" ruling quoted in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, your assertion that "an indirect tax is voluntary" is usually attributed to law books dating before the 16th Amendment, and, even if ever a legal maxim, was no longer such by the time of the Amendment. Furthermore, it would have no place in this article, even if it were correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, I completely understand your point. My whole point, is that the site in question is a United States Government sponsored site... This particular site has absolutely nothing to do with the tax protesters. Tax protesters and tax protesting sites are not affliated with this particular site. This site IS the official United States Government Printing Office website. And as a person inspiring to be a factual information contributor to Wikipedia, I will work on getting the credentials needed to prove the authenticity of this very web page. www.gpoaccess.gov. As for the PDF file being broken, I also clicked on it and for whatever reason it is broken. I'm not computer literate enough to fix it either. But if you'll work with me here for a moment, I have step by step instructions to getting you to that very page.

1.) In your search engine type http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/ [2]
2.) Under the title, "Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation:

2002 Edition & Supplement" Click the link 2008 [3]

3.) Scroll down until you see the Sixteenth Amendment--Income Tax then click on the 96k PDF [4]
I get http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/034.pdf for the PDF (which you have now, but not above), but I think it's identical to www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html , except for formatting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The document to which Threesixx is referring is already linked to from this article (and has been for some time). It's under External links as "CRS Annotated Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment". That link goes to a copy of the document hosted on the web site of the Cornell University Law School (or, to be precise, the goes to the section of the document that deals with the Sixteenth Amendment, which is specifically what ThreeSix has been referring to). The document itself is a publication of the Congressional Research Service; its official title is The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification

WHERES YOUR CITATION ON WHEN THIS AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED?? THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER PASSED WITH A 3/4'S VOTE. THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED ENTIRELY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.90.222.125 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites a US Government Printing Office source listing the states which ratified the 16th Amendment. Discussion of the claim that the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified belongs in "Tax protester arguments", not here. I would support a one- or two-sentence comment (with a link to Tax protester arguments) noting that some people have argued that the ratification process was flawed but that all such arguments have been rejected by US courts. Deleting this page entirely, or flatly stating that it was never actually ratified or that it is invalid for some other reason, would be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Richwales (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the one place at the official U.S. Government Printing Office web site, the Amendment was ratified by 42 states, although even the official sources vary on the number of states. The courts have rejected - over and over and over and over and over again that arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. All this is fully documented in the applicable articles on tax protesters. Famspear (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=315585647"