ColBrokov (September 6, 2008 at 2:33 am)

What you or I or the Treasury has to say about it has no effect on the law. Convictions based on the law are interpretations that it is good law. To be unconstitutional as an indirect tax the Supreme court (as they alone interpret the law) needs to find it as such. They haven't. If they felt that an egregious breach of law was being perpetrated they have the authority to intervene, as they did in 2000 Bush V Gore. They haven't. Until they so act, or congress repeals the law it, it is the law.

ColBrokov (September 6, 2008 at 2:27 am)

I feel that your argument ignores the legal process. Congress has passed an income tax. It's modern incarnation is title 26 of the US Code. Title 26 spells it out in all its complexity. People who have failed to pay the tax (Irwin Schiff, Kent Hovind, Wesley Snipes, et al) have been arrested, pleaded their cases, and jailed. The court, in these cases, interpreted title 26 as good law. Nobody so arrested has ever been released on the basis that title 26 is unconstitutional. Out of space. see next

ColBrokov (September 6, 2008 at 2:13 am)

The problem I have with these two quotes is that they are not good law. The treasury does not make law regarding the income tax and thus has nothing of value to say on the matter. Peck V Lowe was not a decision on the income tax and thus cannot be used to interpret that law. see my above post.

BrakBL (September 5, 2008 at 4:25 am)

Oh one last quote I guess, Research by the Congressional research service in 1980 found that The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution... Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

BrakBL (September 5, 2008 at 4:20 am)

No, I'm not offended at all but I've given two quotes that say the 16th just restricted income tax to indirect tax; Treasury decision 2303 And the quote from the supreme court in Peck v. Lowe. Then I tried to break it down for you to show you how it says that, and you just stick to what you think and I just don't know where else I can take this to try to show you.

ColBrokov (September 5, 2008 at 1:25 am)

Sorry to try to keep this conversation going, but it is fun and you raise too many questions. Even if there had been a conspiracy of the few to fool the American public and the government the income tax has been treated as a law so long that it has passed into common law and would require an act of congress to repeal. Sorry but i never know when to quite. Regardless, if you choose not to respond then allow me to thank you for a fun discussion and I sincerly hope I haven't offended you.

ColBrokov (September 5, 2008 at 12:58 am)

I don't think the constitution contradicts itself. Amendments are additions and corrections to the document. Take the 18th amendment. It allowed the abolition of alcohol, then the 21st repealed the 18th. This demonstrates that the later amendments should not be expected to conform to earlier parts of the document. All of the amendments modify the original intent in some way. I apologize, but I cannot see what the 16th amendment means if not exactly what it says.

BrakBL (September 4, 2008 at 8:42 am)

Sigh your taking on the 16th would mean the constitution contradicts itself, anyway I'm 100% sure I'm correct on it, and I don't think everyone has been secretly hiding this for 100 years I think most of them just don't know and the people who are really in on it just make it harder for them to find out. Anyway if you are to close minded to realize what the 16th really says then there's no point in me continuing, thank you for the conversation and good luck with any further research.

ColBrokov (September 4, 2008 at 2:10 am)

Since nobody chose to address my earlier point I'll raise it again. This conspiracy you guys seem to believe in is far to complicated to be true. All three branches of government secretly colluding over nearly 100 years?! How many thousands of lawmakers, judges, presidents, bureaucrats, sheriffs, ect. needed to be complicit? Rather than commit to some far reaching conspiracy, why not just pass the law? They all seem to agree, they say they intended to, they're lawmakers, so what's the problem?

ColBrokov (September 4, 2008 at 2:00 am)

"from whatever source derived - self explanatory other then anything excluded by law is exempt *cough* section 861 *cough*" Title 26 of the US code details the income tax in all its complexity. The tax is not "excluded by law", it is incorporated by the law. Moreover this law you cite is older than the current income tax law. Please note that the court has never found the current income tax anything but constitutional and enforceable.