Re: King Donald
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:00:50 -0500
- From: Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: King Donald
On 02/09/2017 04:39 PM, Disaster Master wrote:
On 2/9/2017, 4:02:09 PM, Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/09/2017 03:30 PM, Disaster Master wrote:
Actually, many of the cases upholding the income tax as Constitutional
are misinterpretations of laws or the Constitution.
The lower courts can't even agree on whether the Income Tax is a Direct
or Indirect tax.
And the Supreme Court itself said that the 16th amendment 'conferred no
new taxing power'...
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
Being that this is an amendment to the constitution i3/4 of
the states had to agree, and so it is law and is in the
Yep, and as I said and you ignored, in a case regarding the 16th
amendment, the Supreme Court later stated that it changed NOTHING.
I would go dig up the citation, but you'd just ignore it like you are
ignoring everything else.
Oh - and I highly recommend a book the the Benson Brothers called 'The
Law That Never Was' regaridng the fraudulent 'ratification' of the 16th
Why hasn't the gov't ever been held in contempt?
How was it fraudulent? Almost anything can become an
amendment as long as it doesn't go against the constitution
and 3/4 of the states ratify it.
general mailing list