16th ammendment?

Question

Is the 16th ammendment constitutional?

not every state has ratified the ammendment. Connecticut, Florida, Rhode Island, Utah- never ratified. Pennsylvania and Virginia never even took it up the proposed ammendment.

Answer 1

Historical research done by independent researchers has found that the 16th and 17th Amendments were never correctly ratified. They found that most states made corrections and additions to the amendments as per their interests - which totally invalidates that ratification.

They had far too few that ratified the amendments as is - which is what is required.

Wilson and his Attorney General wrongfully and fraudulently announced the deal done and signed them illegally into law.

The poster above has obviously no clue to the ratification process - since the courts have no bearing on the process.

The biggest issue - is getting our current Congress to call for a review of these Amendments and revocation.

Since one allows them to tax us - the other allows them to be elected by popular vote (Senate) rather than be appointed by the state legislatures.

Special interest groups don't want them revoked - it would take their influence away, and ability to fund campaigns of those they want to have in their pocket.

Addendum:

All due respect to the guy below me - yes - 36 ratified, but over half of them modified the amendments in some way, which nullified the ratification.

Answer 2

So what?? An Amendment need only be ratified by 75% of the states. The 16th Amendment needed 36 to pass. 42 states ratified. Done deal!

Answer 3

Here we go again..........

There were 46 states at the time

Per the constitution, 75% of the states needed to ratify the amendment for it to pass (46 x 75% = 35 with rounding).

42 of the voted to ratify it.

Result: The 16th Amendment passed with 7 states to spare.

Tax Protesters seem to see it differently. Facts are a Tax Prostesters worst nightmare.

Answer 4

Yes, it is constitutional. Claims that it is not which have been made by assorted "tax protestors", have been thrown out by every single court where they've been brought up as being "ridiculous", "frivolous", "baseless" and "unsupportable". Or sometimes all of the above at the same time. For example:

“We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always--or often--frivolous. However we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain’s present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of ’adjudicating’ this meritless appeal.”

Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).

For much much more on the topic, essentially shooting down every laughable claim made by tax protestors, see here: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

I see that this question has already brought one of those tax protestors out of the woodwork. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want to believe. The fact that the "not properly ratified" argument was shot down in U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), as well as every other case where it's been brought up, should be enough to convince most people that the argument is ludicrous. But if you want to think otherwise, go right ahead. Jsut be prepared for a rude shock if you don't pay your taxes.

Answer 5

No offense, but that question is ridiculous. If it wasn't constitutional it would have been stopped by the courts LONG before the amendment went to the states to be ratified.