The Evidence:

A. Tax Bill, copyright 2002 tk, sacto.com/eva A. Tax Bill says, " Up the ante!"
The proposed 16th amendment was sent to the 48 states for ratification in 1909. Secretary of State Philander Knox needed to receive valid, certified responses from 36 states to reach the required three-fourths majority specified in Article V of the Constitution. Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it.

The following states are included in the 38 as having passed the Income Tax Amendment. Ohio was not a state at the time, so it couldn't ratify the amendment, thus there can only be 37 counted. There was also a group of states (including Tennessee and Texas) that violated their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment, thus making those state ratifications unlawful, and not legally binding.  Linked below are photocopies (converted to PDF) of the actual documentation sent from the named states to Secretary Knox. Judge for yourself, would you have counted these as the "same" amendment? If just two were invalid, as already shown with Tennessee and Texas, then the three-fourths of states was never reached.

Understand that there are those (including the IRS) who will tell you that the Supreme Court has "addressed" this issue. They will quote to you from Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co or from Miller v. United States and try to convince you that this is an old "frivolous" argument. Notice they will never tell you that the Supreme Court has "ruled on" this issue. They have not. The truth is they CANNOT. Article V of the Constitution specifies the manner of amending the Constitution, so the Supreme Court CANNOT "rule on" the validity of the 16th (Income Tax) Amendment because of the "separation of powers". That would effectively put them in the position of amending the Constitution, which they cannot do because of Article V. The Supreme Court must accept the Constitution as their basis in law, and only the Congress can do anything about amending the Constitution. So when someone quotes court cases to you to try to debunk this argument, they're spouting irrelevant facts, the courts have no authority in the matter. These "defenders" are like magicians, redirecting your attention from the man behind the curtain. That man behind the curtain is your congressman. Write to your congressman, demand (as is your First Amendment right) that he prove to you that this law to which you are being held accountable was legally enacted. He won't, he can't. So where's your First Amendment right now? Good luck exercising your rights,

Gerald Klaas
A. Tax Bill, copyright 2002 tk, sacto.com/eva A. Tax Bill says, " Up the ante!"
This page summarizes facts that are posted on the Libertarian Party website.

This page, and every page on this site ( http://sacto.com/taxes ), is copyright ©2002 Gerald Klaas. Permission is granted to copy and redistribute for private, non-commercial, non-government use. Specific rights claimed can be found on the "copyright" page of the site http://sacto.com/taxes Photocopying or other duplication of this page will encumber you to the payment of royalties as specified in the "copyright" page.