May 31, 2013 at 3:28 pm #16024
The pertinent section of the preamble to the 1939 IRC reads as follows:
“The internal revenue title, which comprises all of the Code except the preliminary sections relating to its enactment, is intended to contain all the United States statutes of a general and permanent nature relating exclusively to internal revenue, in force on January 2, 1939; also such of the temporary statutes of that description as relate to taxes the occasion of which may arise after the enactment of the Code. These statutes are codified without substantive change and with only such change of form as is required by arrangement and consolidation. The title contains no provision, except for effective date, not derived from a law approved prior to January 3, 1939… The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2, 1939, therefore, has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16, 1938….”
If the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to fundamentally change the law to overcome the Pollack decision, by allowing a direct income tax sans apportionment, then why didn’t the code writers make mention of it? And why are the laws dealing with the preceding indirect income tax (the Civil War and 1894 versions) included in the compilation rather than their repeal?June 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm #16025
If one desires answers to these questions I suggest Pete Hendrickson’s latest:
losthorizons.com/Documents/TheTruthAboutThe16thAmendment.pdfJune 13, 2013 at 3:13 am #16026woodsParticipant
I will have to make my way through this material at some point. Right now it seems like mastering the literature on the Kennedy assassination.June 21, 2013 at 3:39 am #16027
Undoing a lifetime of brainwashing is not an easy task. Especially at your level of indoctrination. Like Mark Twain said: “It’s not what we don’t know that harms us; it’s what we do know that ain’t so.” Face it, the government and its myriad of interested camp followers have lied to you your whole life about the income tax. It has been since the Civil War and is today an excise on the exercise of federal privilege. Are you engaged in the exercise of federal privilege? Probably not! Then why do you declare that you are each and every year? Because you have been lied to. Only now you know the truth or at least a little of it. Is it really like mastering the literature on the Kennedy assassination? If you get into it you’ll find it infinitely more liberating. In fact you’ll find that the income excise tax is actually the most libertarian of all forms of taxation. See Blackstone’s ninth excise.July 6, 2013 at 10:48 am #16028woodsParticipant
That’s probably not the most generous way of characterizing the site owner, is it?July 7, 2013 at 2:01 am #16029
No offense intended, but unfortunately its probably true. Luckily ignorance can be fixed, stupidity not. And stupid you are surely not! Heck, I and thousands of other freedom seeking Americans have overcome the very same propaganda from which you now suffer. The extra steeping that you have received makes it harder for you to except that 1) you missed the lie yourself, 2) that your trusted and revered mentors and colleagues did so also. You are certainly intelligent and open-minded enough to overcome that mind game. Yet, on the other hand, you and every other libertarian will properly contend that for limited government to advance its powers beyond those granted it must necessarily lie to do so. Only, the income tax is given a oh-I- better-not-look-there pass, satisfied with the mountain of fear-based BS that has driven you into that pragmatic position in the first place.
Have you read Blackstone?
See my new post in Constitutional History: Blackstone and Dowell: The Income Excise Revealed for a discussion of Blackstone and his follow-up reporter Dowell in relation to the evolution of the income tax.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.