Sorry, I forgot that the title of this thread was 'Income Taxes are Unprincipled, So Don't Pay.' Neither of us have a clue as to the circumstances regarding the ratification of the 16th; we haven't fully researched it at this point, or you simply haven't provided the proof.
CHRIST I hate lost posts. I just spent two hours putting resources together and it says I cant log in because I am logged in and the words eventually went away. Yes I am aware of copy and paste. I have a glitchy ctrl key on this laptop. Dammit.
In a nutshell, I don't just vomit forth arguments I don't believe based on facts. Mostly I post here on my blackberry, and it is inconvenient to reproduce research in a single window. It just takes too long. When I get to a screen I will give you what I can get... which was...
Bill Benson's rather famous exploitation of the non-ratification is pretty extensive... there is a lot of material. It is best summed up with the following I guess...
- The federal government claims Kentucky was the second state to ratify the 16th Amendment, on Feb. 8, 1910. However, the records of the State of Kentucky show that after the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and sent it to the Senate, on Feb. 8, 1910 the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. Apparently, the Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment. Federal officials, who had possession of documents showing this rejection, nevertheless claimed Kentucky had ratified the amendment.
- In Oklahoma, the proposed amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the language of the resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However, the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed, so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion as to have a precisely opposite meaning.
- The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the 16th Amendment. And whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress had proposed. Several states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by Congress, a power that these states did not possess.
- Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington, but this did not deter Philander Knox from claiming that Minnesota ratified the amendment, regardless of the absence of any documentation from the State of Minnesota.
- Article V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires that three-fourths of the states ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American union, so to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states. In February 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment -- including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma. But since Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different, the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of ratifying States being only 35. Then again, a total of 11 states failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment and Minnesota sent in nothing. In the final analysis, if the process of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny, the amendment was never adopted.
I view it as a legal curiosity... not a defense. Much like Ohio not being declared a state until 1956 or so... and then retroactively, which is a violation of some contract law... meaning at the end of the day there is a legal argument for succession... and then you have Texas...
Our constitution is held with almost unparalleled reverence. There are a lot of t's to cross and i's to dot before you get to write on it... as their should be.
As I said... there is a lot of material... some of them... I just cant be bothered to redo the whole post again... here is what was still open... leading to the argument of conflicting constitutions.
In Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U.S. 260 (1877), the Court succinctly stated:
"There can be no estoppel in the way of ascertaining the existence of a law. That which purports to be a law of a State is a law or it is not a law, according as the truth of the fact may be, and not according to the shifting circumstances of parties . . . And whether it be a law or not a law is a judicial question, to be settled and determined by the courts and judges", Id., at 267.
Collier v. Frierson, 24 Ala. 100, 109 (1854)
"It has been said, that certain acts are to be done - certain requisitions are to be observed, before a change can be effected. But to what purpose are these acts required, or these requisitions enjoined, if the Legislature or any other department of the government, can dispense with them. To do so, would be to violate the instrument which they are sworn to support; and every principle of public law and sound constitutional policy requires the courts to pronounce against every amendment, which is shown not to have been made in accordance with the rules prescribed by the fundamental law."
