I wish . . .

That Ron Paul supporters would stop informing me, in ALL CAPS, that various current policies are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, when in fact those very things were WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION via the AMENDMENT PROCESS. The FOUNDING FATHERS deliberately gave future legislators the ability to AMEND the constitution, because they wisely assumed that in the FUTURE there might be circumstances they were unable to FORESEE in 1787. Whatever you may think of the income tax, it is not only constitutional, but actually in the constitution, via this very clear amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The complaints that I don't know what I'm talking about would be more convincing if the people making them gave evidence of having actually read the document that they claim validates their most dearly held beliefs.

Comments

I hate to use this term, because 90% of the time, it seems to me, it's used merely to rankle people who's opinions differ from whoever's making the charge. But... stop feeding the trolls, maybe? I know that there is a large and real Ron Paul-supporting minority, and many of them are entirely principled. But I also read enough blogs to know that there are some very screwy things that go on whenever his name is mentioned, and you've been blogging about him a lot lately (and for good reason, of course.) Hundreds of usernames, never before seen or seen again, pop up to support Ron Paul with very similar-sounding bromides about THE CONSTITUTION and TAKING AMERICA BACK and WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. I know that if you layed off talking about Paul for awhile, you'd be letting yourself get bullied, sort of. But frankly, I think the more you post about him, the more the RonBots (figurative or literal!) will arrive to spread their message.

They're kind of like the Borg.

Posted by Freddie | December 29, 2007 8:20 AM

No way! Are you kidding! PEOPLE WITH BRAINS love hearing OVER AND OVER things that EVERYONE KNOWS and she should continue to debate BASELESS ARGUMENTS in long posts lacking ORIGINAL THOUGHT. It's call obvioublogging. It's all the new rage.

Posted by NutellaonToast | December 29, 2007 9:24 AM

In 1895, when an attempt to pass a law to tax your income, the Supreme Court said taxing income was illegal - what made it suddenly legal in 1909? Besides, if you look at the XVI Amendment carefully, it was never properly ratified by all the states; it therefore shouldn't even be a law.

The complaints you may be getting are from the people who have actually researched the topic, and have read all of the Supreme Court's and other Judges opinions about the XVI Amendmen.

Posted by Robert | December 29, 2007 10:13 AM

I started reading you two years ago, when another blog directed me to a wonderful post you wrote about gay marriage. That post, like your recent posts about Ron Paul, dealt with an issue that involves an extremely passionate minority. But because your tone in the gay marriage post was cautious, thoughtful, and careful to acknowledge multiple points of view, you attracted equally thoughtful comments. In contrast, your tone in recent Ron Paul posts has been haughty and dismissive, and has attracted comments that are equally unpleasant.

I don't carry a brief for Dr. Paul's fans. But as a general rule, I'd say that you are about as responsible as they are for the miserable nature of the comments to your recent posts.

Posted by Joe Magarac | December 29, 2007 10:29 AM

Ok, when something is found unconstitutional, if that thing is entered into the constitution via an ammendment, in then becomes....constitutional. This isn't really very hard. (It's like what Bush wanted to do with an anti gay-marriage ammendment; courts are finding an equal-protection constitutional right to equal civil marriage--so if you change the constitution to specifically ban it, it can't be constitutional anymore. As Megan and your 5th-grade teacher said, the framers of the constitution purposely included a process whereby it could be ammended. Also, Robert, you should look into exactly what is necessary for an ammendment to become constitutional...here's a clue, according to your beloved constitution, all states don't have to ratify it.

This is why we really shouldn't cede the "pro-constitution" line to the Paulites. They have a pretty narrow understanding of it and a pretty faulty undertanding of historical argument. Both liberal and conservative views are in line with the history of constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence, even when they disagree (hard for Paulites to grasp that the constitution isn't a transparent guide for all questions relating to governance). That's just the kind of document the constitution is. For example, is there a right to privacy? Some say no, it's not specifically elaborated, others see a right against unreasable search and seizure as implying it. Is the constitution a living document---well, terms like "unreasonable" or "due process" only have meaning in light of societal standards.

Paulities, you're really out of your league on constitutional matters (Paul totally misrepresented the text of the 14th amendment on MTP and misrepresented the presidential oath of office, also from the constitution, in an Iowa debate). Give your caps lock a rest and go, well, "do the homework" or "learn the facts" so you can "correctly and factually" (or whatever the terms du jour are at your meetings) discuss the constitution.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 29, 2007 10:29 AM

Joe--check other blogs: paulites love the all caps no matter what is written, and dismiss any disagreement as "being totally ignorant of the subject matter." They use a lot of creepily similar formulations. It really has nothing to do with Megan. She critiqued his tax plans, specifically, and they responded with, "yeah, but that's only what's on his web site, not what's in his head." These guys are bad news.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 29, 2007 10:31 AM

Sigh. Now in addition to Paulbots, we're getting tax protesters.

In 1895, when an attempt to pass a law to tax your income, the Supreme Court said taxing income was illegal - what made it suddenly legal in 1909?

1) The Supreme Court didn't say that in 1895. You've never read the Pollock decision, have you?

2) If the Court says dozens of times that an income tax is constitutional, and once says that it's unconstitutional, why would you ignore all of the dozens of rulings and select the one that (you think) supports your ideology?

3) If the Court had said what you think it said, it would be irrelevant, because the Constitution was changed.

Besides, if you look at the XVI Amendment carefully, it was never properly ratified by all the states; it therefore shouldn't even be a law.

Amendments do not need to be ratified by "all the states." They need to be ratified by three quarters of the states, which the Sixteenth Amendment was. If you look "carefully." The fact that some states made various typographical errors does not mean that they did not ratify it. If typographical errors were sufficient to find that an amendment wasn't "properly ratified," then none of the Bill of Rights -- including the Second Amendment, which I'll bet you're fond of -- would be "properly ratified." But neither Bill Benson nor you have the legal authority to decide whether an amendment was "properly ratified."

The complaints you may be getting are from the people who have actually researched the topic, and have read all of the Supreme Court's and other Judges opinions about the XVI Amendmen.

No, actually they're from loons who read a few tax protester websites and thought, "Hey, this says I don't have to pay taxes. Great! I hate paying taxes! Not only that, but it makes me feel smart to think that I understand something that nobody else does. They're all dupes and sheep, and I'm a genius."

Posted by David Nieporent | December 29, 2007 10:36 AM

what made it suddenly legal in 1909?

The 16th Amendment. Duh. Same reason you can't own slaves: they changed the law.

Please

1) List the states which have not ratified the 16th Amendment, and

2) Provide a citation (need not be a link) to what the Supreme Court says about the matter.

Posted by Rob Lyman | December 29, 2007 10:42 AM

You're only wishing for this now? The rest of us- even those of us who view Paul as a worthy protest vote- have been wishing, begging, and pleading for this for months.

It amazes me the extent to which college students (as many of these people are) think they know more about Constitutional law than a lawyer, or more about economics than an economist.

Posted by Mark | December 29, 2007 10:59 AM

"from whatever source derived" is a phrase of legalese that has a very specific meaning. "sources" are specifically named and detailed in the Internal revenue code and name specifically income resulting from international transactions, income earned by international entities on american soil, income resulting from federal contracts, and some miscellaneous cases where the federal govt has jurisdiction. This is the letter of the legislation as passed by our elected representatives. Find this hard to believe? Ever wonder how the tradition of self-reporting of income got started? Through fear and ignorance, the IRS bullied the American people into accepting an incorrect interpretation of the law, and self-reporting and filing domestic income on their taxes. The fear still exists, but the ignorance is beginning to vanish. The revolution is coming...

Posted by Dr Osterman | December 29, 2007 11:44 AM

I basically agree with the "don't feed the trolls" thing even if I'm not practicing what I preach. Although I try to be more diligent in practicing it.

It was understandable you'd want to do posts on each candidate but RP is unfortunately not someone you can discuss online without this kind of response. Even bloggers at Atlantic who've mentioned just a mixed view of him have been inundated. They check "three times a day" or more for anything online that mentions him.

Posted by Thomas R | December 29, 2007 11:51 AM

You're only wishing for this now? The rest of us- even those of us who view Paul as a worthy protest vote- have been wishing, begging, and pleading for this for months.

It amazes me the extent to which college students (as many of these people are) think they know more about Constitutional law than a lawyer, or more about economics than an economist.

Posted by Mark | December 29, 2007 10:59 AM

Logical Fallacy Appeal to Authority.

Posted by Tiger | December 29, 2007 11:58 AM

Tiger--there are some subjects that being an expert in, having studied and practiced, lend you more credibility on than reading some anti-tax websites and watching V for Vendetta. You'd probably let "Dr. Paul" deliver your baby over some college student. Similarly, I like lawyers, historians and economists talking about the constitution, politics and economy.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 29, 2007 12:01 PM

Tiger--there are some subjects that being an expert in, having studied and practiced, lend you more credibility on than reading some anti-tax websites and watching V for Vendetta. You'd probably let "Dr. Paul" deliver your baby over some college student. Similarly, I like lawyers, historians and economists talking about the constitution, politics and economy.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 29, 2007 12:01 PM

Anti-Paul Fallacy Appeal to Reason

Posted by Ron Paul Cultist Post Generator | December 29, 2007 12:11 PM

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

Posted by Tiger | December 29, 2007 12:13 PM

Tiger--weren't you the anti-appeal-to-authority guy? At least make it clear what you think quotations from historical figures prove or demonstrate in this discussion.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 29, 2007 12:29 PM

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Anthony did I support an arguement?

Posted by Talcott | December 29, 2007 12:31 PM

"from whatever source derived" is a phrase of legalese that has a very specific meaningNo, it isn't. It's actually basic English.

"sources" are specifically named and detailed in the Internal revenue code

No, they're not. Sheesh, can't the loons at least be entertaining and come up with new crazy arguments, instead of the ones that have been debunked so many times before? The 861 argument has been rejected by courts on numerous occasions.

(For those of you not up on tax protester arguments, there's basically two species of argument. One is that the income tax is unconstitutional. The second, far loonier, is that even though Congress passed the tax code, they made mistakes when they did so that resulted in the tax code not actually requiring anybody to pay taxes. Nobody notices this but the tax protesters; everyone else is paying a tax that doesn't need to be paid. But instead of Congress just fixing this problem, they and the courts conspire to pretend that the law requires you to pay taxes.)

Posted by David Nieporent | December 29, 2007 12:32 PM

Why even talk to a person who thinks they don't have to pay income tax? Just report them to the IRS and leave it at that. Let them argue with the judge and the prosecuting attorney, who are *paid* to listen to criminals.

Posted by Dan | December 29, 2007 12:33 PM

Anthony and Talcott, you make excellent points, but you will not have correct truthful opinions until you consider what Shakespeare said?

"O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
And I'll no longer be a Capulet."

Posted by David | December 29, 2007 12:44 PM

"Those who fail to learn the lessons apparent when they give up their liberty are doomed to always have their liberty taken away from them, because they're too ignorant to do their research and understand that Dr. Ron Paul knows that paying income tax is for sheep who haven't read the Constitution and think it makes sense to listen to some judge or Congress when they tell you that the Constitution was amended nearly 100 years ago to make you pay your taxes in worthless fiat money instead of letting you keep all your gold buried in your basement."
--Thomas Paine, 1987, in a letter to the Chief Psychiatrist of Arkham Asylum

Posted by Ron Paul Cultist Quote Generator | December 29, 2007 1:10 PM

Megan,
Instead of replying to the stupid comments, why not reply to the insightful ones?

Or is that too much work? Easier to pick on the stupid supporters instead, huh?

Posted by Jesse | December 29, 2007 1:11 PM

iT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT A BAD TROLL INFESTATION.

wHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT YOU GUYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO TROLL SOMEBODY? hUH? sHOW ME THE ORIGINAL TEXT! wHERE IS THE WORD 'TROLL' MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL gOD-INSPIRED DOCUMENT?

nOW GO, OR i SHALL SUMMON THE uRKOBOLD AND hIS mINIONS!

Posted by thoreau | December 29, 2007 1:28 PM

More seriously:

It was understandable you'd want to do posts on each candidate but RP is unfortunately not someone you can discuss online without this kind of response.

Yeah, even though I'm a Paul supporter myself (in a nutshell, I believe that he'll do more good than harm, and that a vote for him will be interpreted as a vote against certain policies, but I don't support everything he's said) I have to admit that supporting him requires me to keep some awkward company.

Posted by thoreau | December 29, 2007 1:34 PM

I am not a tax expert. However, I did watch Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism". I found it fascinating that the IRS seemed unable to reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor. I have heard of several cases where the IRS has lost in court against US citizens (Joe Banister, Tom Cryer et al). In each case, the IRS was not able to produce the law that allows them to tax an individual’s wages. The ratification of the Amendment XVI seems to lie at the heart of this murky controversy, and the Establishment's case never seems to be adequately elucidated.

An Amendment to the Constitution may indeed appear to make something 'constitutional'. That is, until it is determined that it is unconstitutional and it is repealed. There is an example of this, Amendment XVIII (the infamous Prohibition) which the US finally rid itself of with Amendment XXI.

I personally believe that Amendment XVI (just like Amendment XVIII) is an affront to Liberty and the US Constitution.

Posted by D B | December 29, 2007 2:14 PM

The east is red, the sun is rising.
America has brought forth a Doctor Paul.
He amasses fortune for the people,
Hurrah, he is the people's great savior.

Doctor Paul loves the people,
He is our guide,
To build a new America,
Hurrah, he leads us forward!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_East_is_Red

Posted by David | December 29, 2007 2:20 PM

Ron Paul is a PIMPLE on the ass of history.

Posted by Clearasil | December 29, 2007 3:06 PM

However, I did watch Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism". I found it fascinating that the IRS seemed unable to reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.

26 USC 1.

I have heard of several cases where the IRS has lost in court against US citizens (Joe Banister, Tom Cryer et al).

A jury acquitted these people of willful tax evasion. That says precisely as much about the legality of the income tax as the jury's acquittal of OJ Simpson says about the validity of homicide laws.

They were still required to pay their taxes; they just escaped jail.

In each case, the IRS was not able to produce the law that allows them to tax an individual’s wages.

26 USC 1.

An Amendment to the Constitution may indeed appear to make something 'constitutional'. That is, until it is determined that it is unconstitutional and it is repealed. There is an example of this, Amendment XVIII (the infamous Prohibition) which the US finally rid itself of with Amendment XXI.

No. One cannot determine that an Amendment is unconstitutional. The 18th amendment was not "determined to be unconstitutional." It was repealed, because people changed their mind about whether it was a good idea. (And, ironically for this discussion, because the government wanted to raise tax revenues during the depression.)

Posted by David Nieporent | December 29, 2007 4:13 PM

Just to elucidate David's point, here's a link:

26 U.S.C. sec. 1

Pay special attention to the phrase, "There is hereby imposed...a tax..."

Any tax protester who wants to mix it up with David or me should provide citations, not vague assertions. And do consult the online US code, it's a handy resource.

Posted by Rob Lyman | December 29, 2007 5:01 PM

Pay special attention to the phrase, "There is hereby imposed...a tax..."

Well, if you didn't hate liberty so much you wouldn't have cut out the part about how that law ONLY authorizes the government to tax an individual's "TAXABLE INCOME." Which there ISN'T any of, because there's no such THING as taxable income because people who DESPISE LIBERTY have made the Constitution UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Maybe you should do your research.

You really have no excuse--the mimeographed PAMPHLETS laying out these COMMONSENSE principles of tax law and REPUBLICAN government have now been uploaded onto multiple reputable WEBSITES that know more about LIBERTY and the tax code than a bunch of experts in "tax" "law" are ever going to. Why would anyone study a TAX CODE that doesn't even technically exist unless he's a liberty-hating SHEEP? I don't need a bunch of Supreme Court justices and legal historians telling me what to think about this stuff--that's just a DISTRACTION from the research free citizens should be doing on the INTERNET.

Go ahead, make fun of me, it just PROVES that you know I'm right. Or ignore me, it just PROVES that you don't have any arguments and are just mindlessly PARROTING conventional wisdom. Or reason with me, it just PROVES you don't understand what you're dealing with.

Posted by Ron Paul Cultist Post Generator | December 29, 2007 5:38 PM

Thanks for the info David Nieporent. I do question your assertion that an Amendment is constitutional whereas an Amendment which was repealed was not unconstitutional merely a bad idea. Logically flawed in my opinion.

I think the crux of the debate is not the Internal Revenue Code itself, more the legality of the ratification of XVI and thus the law itself. Perhaps you could shed light on this? BTW, regardless of semantics, my impression is that RP would like to abolish income tax, he doesn't claim it is illegal.

You thought I was mixing it up with you Rob Lyman? No, I am just an interested observer. But I'm quite astonished by your arrogance and superciliousness. You epitomize what the world sees wrong with the US today.

Posted by D B | December 29, 2007 6:10 PM

I'd love to repeal the amendment, how about that?

While we're at it, let's start enforcing the 10th on matters not enumerated - health, education, social policy, etc...

Posted by independent | December 29, 2007 6:47 PM

I'm no expert in Constitutional Law but since Megan has been very wrong in the past on subjects that I have spent decades researching, I couldn't take her word for it. I've been doing my own research and have come to stopping point where I hope experts on either side can shed some light.

First, it seems that the Federal Government got it's power to tax income from the 16th Amendment. I've read all of the arguments against it's ratification (I think) and none of them seem to hold up to scrutiny. I think it's pretty certain that the Amendment was ratified.

However, I came across 2 Supreme Court rulings that raise a question. In the first, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, the SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the Federal Government no new powers to tax. Years later, in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., the original ruling was upheld when the court said "It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power". I have yet to find a Supreme Court ruling overturning either of these decisions.

So, if the 16th Amendment was required to give the Federal Government the power to collect taxes on income but the SCOTUS ruled on multiple occasions that the Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation (if your income wasn't taxable before the 16th Amendment, it wasn't taxable after) and these rulings have never been overturned then how does the 16th Amendment require U.S. citizens to pay income tax? I know for a fact that lower courts can not overturn a SCOTUS ruling so I'm looking for another Supreme Court case. Thanks in advance to anyone that answers my question.

Posted by Sergei | December 29, 2007 7:23 PM

Sergei -
The 16th removed the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned according to the population of the individual states. Congress always had the power to tax income, it just had to distribute the burden in such a way that the revenue collected from each state was proportional to the population of that state. As you can imagine this would be a huge pain in the ass to arrange, not to mention it seems pretty arbitrary from the point of view of justice.

So the 16th didn't "bring any new subject within the taxing power." It just removed a restriction on the particular way the tax works.

Posted by Matthew | December 29, 2007 7:49 PM

Just to clarify - the 16th removed the apportionment restriction for income taxes only, not on direct taxes in general.

Posted by Matthew | December 29, 2007 7:51 PM

"Thanks for the info David Nieporent. I do question your assertion that an Amendment is constitutional whereas an Amendment which was repealed was not unconstitutional merely a bad idea. Logically flawed in my opinion."

It can't have been unconstitutional because, as an amendment, it was IN THE CONSTITUTION. Constitutional means in accordance with the Constitution. Amendments are, by definition, constitutional.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 29, 2007 8:29 PM

Thanks Matthew. So, are you saying that the law is being applied incorrectly and most Americans do not have to pay income tax? Since most Americans were not liable to pay income tax prior to the 16th (as shown in the courts Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust ruling) and the post-16th SCOTUS rulings claimed the 16th didn't "bring any new subject within the taxing power", it seems that the 16th Amendment wouldn't apply to any citizen not already liable for income taxes. Maybe it was just bad wording by the court but if taken literally, that's what it seems to imply.

To me, this isn't that big of an issue. Whether the tax is being applied correctly or not, I've been paying it (too much for too long). It's not needed (regardless of how many people think they can convince me 2+2=5) and Ron Paul is the only candidate that agrees with me. Also, is it just me or does Megan only seem to address trolls and the least informed, childish comments?

Posted by Sergei | December 29, 2007 8:42 PM

DB:

...I do question your assertion that an Amendment is constitutional whereas an Amendment which was repealed was not unconstitutional merely a bad idea. Logically flawed in my opinion...

Think of it this way:

An amendment to to the constitution (once ratified, etc) is, by definition, constitutional.

The 18th amendment was, therefore, constitutional.

Then another amendment (the 21st) was passed repealing the 18th amendment. You see, they had to pass ANOTHER amendment because the 18th amendment was (you see) part of the constitution (i.e. "constitutional").

Congress prohibiting the sale of alcohol now, however, WOULD be unconstitutional because the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st.

Do you see DB?

Again: An amendment to the constitution is a CHANGE to the constitution, if that amendment is REPEALED (by another amendment) then the constitution is changed BACK.

What's illogical about that?

Posted by alexander | December 29, 2007 8:44 PM

Sergei -
No. What Pollack did elaborate the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. Only direct taxes are subject to the proportionality requirement. Pollack said that income from labor was an indirect tax, but income from other sources (rent on property, return on investment, etc) was direct.

So even during the time between Pollack and the 16th, Congress had the power to tax labor income without the proportionality requirement. The effect of the 16th was to extend this exemption from the proportionality requirement to income "from whatever source derived."

The sentences after the one you quote is helpful here. Here are the sentences together:

"It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes 'from whatever source derived'. "
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.

Posted by Matthew | December 29, 2007 9:02 PM

There are many things the federal govt does that are beyond the powers allowed to it by the constitution.

The federal tax code is not one of them.

Here is one of the best tax protest debunking sites out there. It explains very well to a layman like me what the various court cases that are often thrown around actual mean, and the context in hwich they were decided.

Posted by Kolohe | December 29, 2007 9:18 PM

I'm quite astonished by your arrogance and superciliousness. You epitomize what the world sees wrong with the US today.

Maybe I'm an arrogant SOB for wanting those who discuss the law to, you know, cite the law, but at least I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that the literally hundreds of thousands of judges, lawyers, lawmakers, and professors who have considered this question are all somehow wrong, and that only my genius can penetrate the fog of incompetence they're all mired in.

Posted by Rob Lyman | December 29, 2007 9:46 PM

Sergei -

Also, as an aside, I've never understood why tax protesters seem committed to the claim that the income tax is unconstitutional. As you said, the question of whether a law or policy is morally right or morally wrong is distinct from whether it is constitutional.

There certainly have been laws that were constitutional but were clearly immoral. Say, anything to do with slavery prior to the 13th. It seems like a more promising strategy to simply argue directly the case that the taxation scheme is unjust, rather than get bogged down in a (ultimately futile) attempt to argue it is unconstitutional.

Incidentally, I offer this as advice from an opponent - I don't at all think that the taxation scheme is fundamentally immoral. But I'd be much more sympathetic to an explicitly moral argument invoking natural rights (or something similar) than this constitutional argument.

Matthew

Posted by Matthew | December 29, 2007 10:00 PM

Very useful FAQ, Kolohe! Thanks for the URL.

Posted by Dan | December 29, 2007 10:32 PM

Matthew,

The argument about legality makes sense to me if you're talking about the things that the income tax is spent on.

Its not that I have a problem with social programs and public services, its just that I see those as state responsibilities and not federal ones. I'm one of those old fools who thinks the 10th amendment should mean something about the separation of powers.

Posted by independent | December 30, 2007 12:47 AM

Rob Lyman, if you had managed to comprehend my post then surely you would've noticed that I was merely raising a query. I don't think it is arrogant to question matters of such import, regardless of how many law professionals have already considered them. It was the rude, even puerile, nature of your schoolyard bully reply that I found offensive. You brought the tone of the discussion way down and behaved like a troll.

Anthony Cantor and Alexander thanks for your replies. My logic still tells me that when an Amendment is repealed by another Amendment, then surely the original Amendment becomes unconstitutional? However I think we are arguing semantics and I don't think that splitting hairs is worth the effort.

I wouldn't consider myself a 'tax protester', merely one who does not believe that income tax is either necessary or desirable. The fact is that US legislators have the power to remove the burden of income tax (carried disproportionately by the poor and middle classes) by repealing the XVI, its legality or otherwise notwithstanding.

Posted by D B | December 30, 2007 5:37 AM

if you had managed to comprehend my post then surely you would've noticed that I was merely raising a query.

Actually, there's no question mark in your original post.

However, if you really are merely an "interested observer," then I was unnecessarily brusque: my bad. On the other hand, the seemingly innocent query "Where is the law?" is at the heart of tax protester nonsense, so you sure looked like a tax protester to me.

Maybe I should be unfailingly polite to tax protesters from now on. It will not be easy, and I will continue to insist on them providing citations and links to the actual law.

Posted by Rob Lyman | December 30, 2007 10:50 AM

Think about a three person election: Huckabee (wins R nomination), Paul (runs as well financed independent) and either Clinton or Obama. Then think about a 4-person general election in which Bloomberg is the 4th candidate- it could happen and the House of Representatives may choose the next President. Either way, it would be interesting to see how many votes Paul got- in either the 3 or 4 person election, I believe that he would come last.

I don't respect the Constitution which was a sop to slaveholders, and would just as soon see it scrapped in honesty instead of ignored and shredded behind the curtain and Generalissimo Bush has done.

Posted by bobsnodgrass | December 30, 2007 12:31 PM

Sorry, my typing error

Think about a three person election: Huckabee (wins R nomination), Paul (runs as well financed independent) and either Clinton or Obama. Then think about a 4-person general election in which Bloomberg is the 4th candidate- it could happen and the House of Representatives may choose the next President. Either way, it would be interesting to see how many votes Paul got- in either the 3 or 4 person election, I believe that he would come last.

I don't respect the Constitution which was a sop to slaveholders, and would just as soon see it scrapped in honesty instead of ignored and shredded secretly as Generalissimo Bush has done.

Posted by bobsnodgrass | December 30, 2007 12:33 PM

A slight correction to something I said the other day. I said that any law having to do with slavery prior to the 13th was immoral. I had forgotten about the 1808 law banning the importation of slaves.

This isn't purely an interesting but irrelevant fact. That 1808 law is on much more questionable constitutional footing than the federal tax code. A nice discussion of this point is here:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/12/end-of-international-slave-trade-and.html

So that might be an example of a law that was morally right *and* unconstitutional. The point is, there is little reason to believe that a law being moral and a law being constitutional are coextensive. My impression is those tax protesters - and this is true of all sorts of other political movements - invoke the following sort of argument:

(1) The Constitution is the final word on political justice.
(2) My favored view follows from the Constitution.
(3) Therefore, my view is the right one.

A lot of the debate is focussed on whether (2) is correct. But even if it is, (1) is pretty clearly not - as the 1808 law, among others, show.

Posted by Matthew | December 30, 2007 6:04 PM

D B:
The fact is that US legislators have the power to remove the burden of income tax (carried disproportionately by the poor and middle classes)...

That parenthetical comment is dead wrong. Aside from the obvious reason why people with high incomes pay more in income taxes than people with low incomes, the income tax is progressive (the Social Security tax is not, but it doesn't even come close to making up for the progressivity of the income tax--see this PDF), so people in the upper class have an effective federal tax rate of 2-7 times the tax rates paid by the middle and lower classes.

...by repealing the XVI, its legality or otherwise notwithstanding.

Can and should. The income tax is an abomination. But it is a legal abomination. See here for the definitions you asked for. Taxable income is gross income minus deductions, and gross income includes, among other things, "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items."

Posted by Brandon Berg | December 31, 2007 4:36 AM

D.B. and Brandon Berg --

"The fact is that US legislators have the power to remove the burden of income tax (carried disproportionately by the poor and middle classes) by repealing the XVI, its legality or otherwise notwithstanding."

Not necessarily. Since the 16th Amendment only removed the "apportionment" requirement on the taxation of income derived from rent and state and municipal bonds (and maybe royaltes), its repeal would leave Congress with the power to tax all other sources of income, without apportionment. That means income derived from labor and most private enterprise.

Posted by Peter K. | December 31, 2007 9:56 AM

Looks like some accountants and tax lawyers are getting nervous about their future employment. It is rather sad how easy it is to justify an injustice when you can profit from it.

Posted by DRB | December 31, 2007 11:21 AM

While I do require my government to respect and abide by the Constitution, no such requirement falls upon me. Humanity should be ruled not by the Constitution, but by Natural Law. As long as I do no harm to another, the government should not be allowed to take a percentage of my money by force.

History will bear out that the Constitution is not perfect, and one day true liberty will be had by all.

P.S. - For all of those thinking 'What about the children' because surely without the people's hard earned tax money they'll go aroud barefoot and uneducated and hungry... suck an egg. The children will be fine without you requesting the government steal my money.

Posted by Free Jason | December 31, 2007 11:26 AM

I just want to give some props to Rob Lyman, Matthew, and David Nieporent for wading into the storm and trying to make some coherent arguments. Most of the regular posters seem to have fled - "holy crap, look at the troll storm" and are waiting for new posts that aren't about Ron Paul.

Also, thanks to Sergei for voicing genuine uncertainty, along with real citations and an open mind.

It's good to be reminded that I can actually learn stuff by reading the comments sometimes.

Posted by Geoff | December 31, 2007 11:30 AM

DB: "My logic still tells me that when an Amendment is repealed by another Amendment, then surely the original Amendment becomes unconstitutional?"

Here's another way to think about constitutional/un-con:

Consider a law which specifically allows the sale of guns at gun shows (i.e., "Any person may sell a gun at a gun show"). Now, consider a second law repealing that law (i.e., "The law which stated "Any person may sell a gun at a gun show" is hereby repealed"). Does the repeal make the first law "illegal" or simply not the law? It may well be that it is illegal for "Any person [to] sell a gun at a gun show" under some other law (or not, depending on interpretation of other law), but that doesn't make the first law "illegal". Similarly, the repeal of an amendment does not make the repealed amendment "unconstitutional", but rather extra-constitutional.

Posted by zaleriana | December 31, 2007 12:47 PM

I have long ago learned to take the measure of a man by the company he keeps.

Click on my handle (or go to the URL below) to see a really nice photo-op with L. Ron Paul:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only

Yup, that's the proprietor of the neo-Nazi, excuse me, "White Nationalist" website stormfront.org (I won't link to that cesspool).

More here:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28359_Stormfront_at_Ron_Paul_Forum&only

and here:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28355_Paulians-_Neo-Nazi_Supporters_Are_Actually_Zio-Nazis&only

"White nationalists", Israel-haters, anti-tax kooks, bong-hitting college students who will vote for anybody promising to legalize dope, looney leftists who can't find a Democrat that's defeatist, er, "anti-war" enough, paleocons homesick for the days of 'restricted' country clubs, "reality be damned" doctrinaire paleolibertarians,... in other words, pretty much every lunatic fringe element in American politics supports L. Ron Paul.

Posted by Former Belgian | December 31, 2007 4:22 PM

PS: if you want to know why L. Ron Paul scores so well in certain polls, have a look at this article exposing "Poll punking techniques":

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28364_Ron_Paul_Poll_Punking_Techniques_Exposed&only

(or click on my handle if the URL doesn't show)

Posted by Former Belgian | December 31, 2007 4:24 PM

(I won't link to that cesspool).

If that's your standard, why link to LGF?

Posted by Just Dropping By | December 31, 2007 5:20 PM

Who signed the legal bill, into law, creating the income tax?

I'd like to see a vote count.

But no such law actually exists, does it?

Posted by Richard Wicks | December 31, 2007 7:25 PM

For hopefully the last time, the income tax is U.S Code 26, Subtitle A.

This is the link:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.html

The law enacting this code was the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This was mostly a revision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. This in turn was a revision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

The roll call for each of these bills is available on the website for the Senate and the House, but they're both loading rather slowly right now so I'll leave that to you.

And on that note, Happy New Year.

Posted by Matthew | December 31, 2007 7:42 PM

Richard Wicks, here you go:

One form of argument is simply that the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted. This is easily disproved by checking the records of the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986). More recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (as well as other public laws) can be found on-line through the “Thomas” web site maintained by the Library of Congress.

see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

I guess it is easier to believe that some loophole technicality is out there and only people brave enough to self-publish books on it are aware.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 31, 2007 8:12 PM

Who signed the legal bill, into law, creating the income tax?

As has been pointed out above, the law you are interested in is 26 U.S.C. sec. 1, which I will not link because of fear of entering moderation purgatory.

I don't have the info handy for the original bill from 80 years ago or so, but the big reform in 1986 covered everything you would be interested in. This is Public Law 99-514, recorded in the Statutes at Large at 100 Stat. 2096, and it was signed by President Reagan.

The genuinely interested may consult the Library of Congress's webpage. If you go here, you can scroll down to number 513, which is H.R. 3838. The text is not online, but a legal library would have Statutes at Large. You could also find it by bill number in the microfilm collection of any decent-sized law school.

What is online is a record of all the votes and amendments, with dates, along with the date of Reagan's signature. For instance, I was able to determine that thanks to Senator Stevens (R-AK), income from reindeer held in trust was made exempt from federal taxation. Now I know where my extra savings will be invested.

I am neither accountant nor tax lawyer, yet I managed to come up with that information using only free online resources. I could do better if I were willing to spend money on real legal research tools or walk down the street to the county law library.

Having answered Mr. Wicks question, now I have one of my own. There are many people who consider abortion to me murder, and its continued legality tantamount to a massive genocide. There are also those who consider the Supreme Court to have decided the constitutional question wrongly; that is, many people believe that abortion is not properly a constitutional right.

The one thing the pro-life movement never asserts is that abortion is "really" illegal, or that Roe v. Wade doesn't actually exist, and it's just a massive conspiracy to keep Americans in the dark. Everyone agrees that abortion is legal, we just argue over whether it should be.

So my quesiton is: Why do tax protesters insist that there is no law imposing an income tax? It is perfectly possible to believe the tax unjust, immoral, or even unconstitutional, without denying that such a tax exists. Yet we keep coming back to "there is no tax! Really, Congress screwed it up and hasn't ever bothered to fix it!" This makes absolutely no sense.

Posted by Rob Lyman | December 31, 2007 8:14 PM

Robert: In 1895, when an attempt to pass a law to tax your income, the Supreme Court said taxing income was illegal - what made it suddenly legal in 1909?

I am assuming that Robert should have written:

In 1895, when an attempt to pass a law to tax your income, the Supreme Court said taxing income was illegal - what made it suddenly legal in 1909, four years before the 16th amendment was passed?

While I think that an answer to this question has already been provided in this thread (i.e. that the 16th amendment did not legalize the federal income tax but rather removed restrictions on the already constitutional income tax*), I still wanted to point out the implicit point in Robert's remark, because it makes his comment much easier to make sense of.

*I haven't done enough legal research to confirm the accuracy of this interpretation for myself, so I am not taking a position one way or another on the issue (although as a practical matter, paying the tax, whether it is constitutional or not, is definitely safer).

Posted by Glaivester | December 31, 2007 8:18 PM

As Rob Lyman helpfully pointed out:

"As has been pointed out above, the law you are interested in is 26 U.S.C. sec. 1, which I will not link because of fear of entering moderation purgatory."

But

That's the tax CODE.

I want to know the law that gives the Federal government the right to collect taxes.

As you know, the 16th amendment gives congress the right to lay and collect taxes.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But the only way they have the power to do that is passing it into law.

That will start with an H.R.

This is the issue tax protesters are bringing up, and guess what?

There is appears to be no law ever passed by Congress and Congress is the only body that has the authority to pass such a law.

This is why when you call the IRS and ask them what law says you need to file, they'll respond that's it's "voluntary compliance".

Yes, voluntary compliance at the end of a gun.

Posted by Richard Wicks | January 1, 2008 1:30 AM

As Rob Lyman helpfully pointed out:

"As has been pointed out above, the law you are interested in is 26 U.S.C. sec. 1, which I will not link because of fear of entering moderation purgatory."

But

That's the tax CODE.

I want to know the law that gives the Federal government the right to collect taxes.

As you know, the 16th amendment gives congress the right to lay and collect taxes.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But the only way they have the power to do that is passing it into law.

That will start with an H.R.

This is the issue tax protesters are bringing up, and guess what?

There is appears to be no law ever passed by Congress and Congress is the only body that has the authority to pass such a law.

This is why when you call the IRS and ask them what law says you need to file, they'll respond that's it's "voluntary compliance".

Yes, voluntary compliance at the end of a gun.

Posted by Richard Wicks | January 1, 2008 1:31 AM

Incidentally, H.R. 3838 is Katrina relief.

Posted by Richard Wicks | January 1, 2008 1:35 AM

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 *was* H.R 3838. That was from the 99th Congress, in 1986. They number the bills in the order that they are introduced - restarting with each new Congress, which lasts for two years.

We are currently in the 110th Congress. In the 110th Congress, H.R. 3838 was Katrina Relief.

Saying that H.R. 3838 couldn't be the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is like saying that Bill Clinton wasn't inaugurated on January 20th, because George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20th.

I have no good reason for being up at this hour, and now I'll sign off for good. If the several comments I've posted here over the last few days haven't convinced skeptics, then I suppose no cogent and well-sourced argument will. Such is the chaotic nature of unfettered democratic debate. A buzzing, blooming confusion. But let no one say that I, for my part, haven't argued in good faith.

Posted by Matthew | January 1, 2008 5:39 AM

Richard, the Internal Revenue Code is a law. Do you really think Congress just never got around to passing a law and only you and your gurus have noticed? That is really silly. see here;

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

Posted by Anthony Cantor | January 1, 2008 8:54 AM

Richard, I posted a link to the correct HR 3838 with instructions. I just checked and the link works. Try following my instructions.

That said, the "U.S. Code" consists of laws passed by Congress. The "Code of Federal Regulations" consists of regs adopted by agencies like the IRS. I believe you're confusing the two.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 1, 2008 10:47 AM

Richard Wicks --

The arguments you've been raising, and many similar ones, are listed, together with cites to court cases refuting same, at the Anti-Defamation League's "Militia Watchdog" website.

The page is called "Idiot Legal Arguments", and you can find it here:

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

I happen to be a committed libertarian, and I plan to vote for Ron Paul.

I believe the income tax should be repealed. I would not believe that if the thing hadn't been enacted in the first place.

Furthermore, if filing returns and paying the income tax was optional, as many people like you seem to believe it is, I would be FOR it. So would all libertarians.

Posted by Peter K. | January 1, 2008 1:11 PM

"Whatever you may think of the income tax, it is not only constitutional, but actually in the constitution, via this very clear amendment:"

It is not very clear at all. "Income" is not defined. At the time "income" didn't mean any amount of money received by a person, it meant profit.

The income tax issue is a very tangled one. There is a lot of BS from various fools, frauds, cons, followers, and kooks. And that isn't just true of the federal government either, it also applies to much of the anti-income tax movement. I've read the IRC, by no means all of it, but I estimate at least approximately 1000-1200 pages or more of various publications, forms, pamphlets and the IRC etc. It is an affront to the American legal tradition, purpose, meaning, structure, history, etc. Disgusting. Constitutional arguments are prohibited from the "due process" hearings. How can that be legal? How can the government demand any amount of money and labor it desires and the American people have no right to defend themselves from being robbed and enslaved? It''s not legal, and they get away with it because people prefer to abide by the evil they are accustomed to than act for change.

Posted by Patrick Henry | January 1, 2008 10:39 PM

Constitutional arguments are prohibited from the "due process" hearings. How can that be legal?

For the same reason the USPTO won't take patent applications on perpetual motion machines: Because they're futile and a waste of time. Those arguments have been tried over and over and over and lost every time; you're not going to change that.

Indeed, as others have pointed out, the 16th amendment isn't necessary to lay an unapportioned tax on income, so whatever you think "income" means, it is irrelevant to whether you have to pay on what you earn by working.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 1, 2008 11:04 PM

Collection of sources regarding the income tax, many pretty good: http://www.constitution.org/cs_taxes.htm

Posted by Patrick Henry | January 1, 2008 11:10 PM

"For the same reason the USPTO won't take patent applications on perpetual motion machines: Because they're futile and a waste of time. Those arguments have been tried over and over and over and lost every time; you're not going to change that."

"Those arguments" are much of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and the common law. Those arguments have lost according to the judges, but if you examine the legal arguments then it is clear the judges are either corrupt or incompetent. It seems there is no individual right or limitation on government power that applies to the income tax and it's enforcement. The accidental or willful failure of the judicial system to recognize, understand, and apply the law does not invalidate the law nor make their opinions the law.

>>Indeed, as others have pointed out, the 16th amendment isn't necessary to lay an unapportioned tax on income, so whatever you think "income" means, it is irrelevant to whether you have to pay on what you earn by working.

Based upon my research I disagree. Why would the 16th Amendment not be necessary for that purpose? Where is the clause in the Constitution delegating the power to lay unapportioned direct taxes on real peoples property?

Posted by Patrick Henry | January 1, 2008 11:25 PM

Where is the clause in the Constitution delegating the power to lay unapportioned direct taxes on real peoples property?

There is none, but a tax on wages in an indirect tax.

The accidental or willful failure of the judicial system to recognize, understand, and apply the law does not invalidate the law nor make their opinions the law.

"What will courts do?" is what most people mean when they ask "What is the law?" I say that as someone whose job is to answer people (including, at one time, a judge) when they ask me "What is the law?"

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 2, 2008 9:19 AM

As I have already pointed out, I am libertarian and anti-income-tax.

But I am not one of what I call the "income tax denialists". I acknowledge the existence of the income tax, the fact that it applies to what I earn, the fact that Congress passed it and the fact that the Constitution authorized Congress to do so.

Two frequent subjects of confusion among the income tax denialists are the meanings of the 16th Amendment and the Supreme Court case which preceded it, Pollock v, Farmers Loan & Trust.

The 16th Amendment reads:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

If it had been intended to give Congress a power it did not already have, and if Congress did not already have the power to tax incomes, that first comma would be a period, and no more words would follow.

But Congress already did have that power, under Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Income taxes were not excluded. The only limit on the power of taxation not stated in Section 8, was the one in Section 9:

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

What the Pollock case decided was NOT that income taxes are "direct" taxes. Pollock decided that a "direct" tax was a tax that was upon real estate, and that this was true even if the tax was "by indirect means". Thus, in the view of the Pollock majority, a tax on the rental income of land was just as much a direct tax as a tax on the land itself.

In short, nothing in Pollock supports the view that taxes on wages, salaries, or business profits are "direct" taxes subject to the apportionment requirement of Section 9.

Nor does anything in Pollock support the view that Congress could not have layed an "apportioned" tax on rent if it had wanted to.

But it would have been politically impossible either to tax only non-rent income, or to "apportion" the tax on rent income.

That is why the 16th Amendment does not stop at that first comma.

Posted by Peter K. | January 2, 2008 11:34 AM

"Why even talk to a person who thinks they don't have to pay income tax? Just report them to the IRS and leave it at that. "

Why even talk to a person who thinks they don't have to parrot the Party line? Just report them to the KGB and leave it at that.

Posted by Fred C. | January 2, 2008 11:46 AM

"In contrast, your tone in recent Ron Paul posts has been haughty and dismissive..."

Hey Joe, wishing moRons would quit screaming IGNORANT NONSENSE in ALL CAPS may "sound" haughty and dismissive, but who knows? Maybe Megan is L her AO. And why not? There is no way to point out Ron Paul followers are acting like a rabid cult of fruitcakes without insulting their....nonintelligence.

Speaking of amendments being a legit part of our consitution, Ron Paul is all for "fascist gummint" control of women's wombs and wants to amend the constitution to make zygotes "persons" and subject to more protections than the women carrying them.

Posted by Zee | January 2, 2008 12:45 PM

Wow,
I must say I've learned some things from reading these posts.

1) The legality of the tax code. Thanks for informing me.

2) There seems to be quite a bit of hate/spite for Ron Paul.

I've always been an independent that would like a smaller government-one that concentrated itself with national defense. When I look at all the candidates (republican or democrat), they all seem to be cut from the same cloth. They all promise/say the same thing I’ve been hearing for years but never seem to deliver (except for more & more Government). Meanwhile this country is hemorrhaging financially & nobody seems to care. It would be interesting to know just who you people would like to see in office & why?
Also, if you can’t stand these Trolls as you call them, why are you wasting your time with them? Shouldn’t you be out passionately endorsing your candidate? Or does the person you wish to see in office not generate that sort of passion? If not, Too bad for you.

Posted by Jacob | January 2, 2008 1:57 PM