2007-07-12 03:07:28 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It wasn't....
The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.
2007-07-12 03:17:03 · answer #1 · answered by Cookies Anyone? 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I have seen this argument put forth by several "Tax Denier" Experts.
There is truth to the idea that the 16th amendment was ratified in an inappropriate manner, several states misspelled words in their documents, there were different wordings from state to state.
However, this can be said of any amendment that was added to the bill of rights. Is the 14th amendment invalid because it was improperly ratified? No one has ever even attempted this argument.
If you are interested in avoiding paying taxes, you should know that Federal Judges consider THIS particular argument to be "Frivolous" in nature, and they will likely not allow it to be used as a defense, and will fine anyone who attempts to.
2007-07-12 03:16:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the evidence is clear and unequivocal that 42 states ratified the amendment which was more than enough to make it law. The tax denier argument that it wasn't properly ratified is old and has been repeatedly played out in the courts, history books and congressional/constitutional records. Every time it has been proved to have been properly ratified.
2007-07-12 03:25:28 · answer #3 · answered by Matt M 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
The proof is pretty solid on this. 36 States needed to ratify it, and 42 did. With all of the case law to back it up, up to and including the Supreme Count, there's no argument to be made that it was not properly ratified.
In fact, attempting to raise that as a defense for not paying Federal income taxes will likely get you slapped with additional fines for wasting the court's time.
It doesn't matter what YOU think about it, it matters what the LAW says. And the LAW on that issue is cut and dried at this point.
2007-07-12 03:18:13 · answer #4 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
bill is appropriate. The judiciary is there to uphold and interpret the form. subsequently why they are able to declare rules unconstitutional, yet won't be able to declare area of the form unconstitutional. area of the reason the founding fathers labored this into the advent of the judiciary became to avert the judiciary, or the administrative with the aid of applying the judiciary, from destroying the complication-loose values of the form. are you able to think of a judiciary that desperate to overturn exchange a million? Or exchange 14?
2017-01-02 06:50:23 · answer #5 · answered by holtslander 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law that never was:
"Bill Benson--
After serving time in federal prison for not paying his United States income taxes, Bill Benson still does not pay income taxes and yet our federal government chooses not to arrest him. Why? Because now he can use this book, which he has written : 'THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS' in his defense. To this day, Bill Benson proclaims, just as loudly, that he will not pay an unjust and corrupt federal income tax."
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp
2007-07-12 03:39:48 · answer #6 · answered by jswnwv 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. It is brilliant economic policy.
2007-07-12 03:24:47 · answer #7 · answered by Incognito 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
No way!
2007-07-12 03:11:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋