THE 16th AMENDMENT was never RATIFIED?

Question

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm
what do you guys think?

Answer 1

I checked out your link, and I have read and/or heard this information before. I want it to be proven true without a shadow of a doubt. From the very depths of my being. The sixteenth amendment is at the very least, one of the greatest evils if not out and out frauds every perpetrated against the American people, and I think it should be abolished/revoked immediately! *SM*

Answer 2

Radified Feb 16, 1913

Answer 3

I don't know about that but I really wouldn't trust that website. I only read up to the second sentence and their grammar totally doesn't make sense. reread this:

This is the Amendment that allegedly ENTITLED the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" WAS falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox.

there are two conjugated verbs in this sentence. doesn't make sense. so...idk. maybe check another source.

Answer 4

Yes, it was. As confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

The 16th Amendment was ratified in writing by 37 of the 48 states, with 36 being required. This was confirmed by the US Supeme Court as early as 1916, in Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1. While the majority of those ratifications had differences in capitalization or punctuation, or other minor typographic errors, none of those differences were material because none of them affected the meaning or interpretation of the amendment. As ruled on by numerous federal courts: "Ratification of Sixteenth Amendment, permitting Congress to impose income tax, was not rendered invalid by typographical errors in resolutions of various states ratifying Amendment." Sisk v. C.I.R., 791 F.2d 58, 61 (6th Cir. 1986) cert denied. For those who don't know what "cert denied" means, it means the Supreme Court was asked to review the decision, and found that there was nothing that needed to be addressed. See also Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892) (generally stating the rule). Also, those who would argue the 16th was not ratified because of typos in the ratification notices must also reject the 19th Amendment (granting women the right to vote) for the same reason. So, hopefully, none of those making that argument are women.

Typographic errors in the ratification notice don't invalidate the ratification. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that. See, among other cases, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). The fact that the 16th Amendment specifically was properly ratified was confirmed by the Supreme Court in dozens of cases, going back to Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). This ratification has been confirmed, over and over and over again by every federal appellate court and every Supreme Court case that has reviewed the matter in the last 90 years. So, either people acknowledge the Supreme Court as valid and that its rulings have the force of law, or they don't.

Answer 5

I wish it were true, we could all get a huge refund check, but
I really believe that it was ratified some 90 or so years ago.
(hmm, seems some of the people are saying 1913 so that
is about right)

Answer 6

Check Feb. 25th 1913.

Answer 7

The Supreme Court differs with your opinion..... I'll side with the court.

Answer 8

Don't believe all the stupid propaganda you find. Anyone can post anything on the internet.