0

First let me say this, I'm not a Sovereign citizens, i'm not trying to not pay taxes, i'm not trying to argue if it is legal or not that you have to pay, you do.

What im more interested in is the concept, notions and rulings before 1913 and the amendment, legality, conflicting Constitutionality, etc.... 1911-1913 very shady time in USA political history. They could admen the Constitution to make a law Constitutional. Article I, 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.

Also the arguments of Jefferson and Jackson on our monetary system.

Wasn't the whole point of the revolutionary war not to pay taxes to Lombard Banks, Bank of England? And the whole Idea of America was to make its own money and not borrow or have money backed by these private companies/people?

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for being an unapportioned direct tax.

5
  • 3
    None of those ideas about the revolutionary war or tax recipients or "the whole idea of America" match anything in real history, so, no.
    – Nij
    Apr 29 at 1:02
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because it belongs on History.SE
    – bdb484
    Apr 29 at 1:34
  • All you bring up is unconnected ramblings, akin to how sovreign citizens want to try to fight that there is a SCOTUS case that says you can drive without a driver's license or that John Doe and JOHN DOE are two distinct entities, one of them a governmental created tax account or something...
    – Trish
    Apr 29 at 6:40
  • And someone was daft enough to upvote this, a clearly POB and too broad rant, that is rightly closed for needing far too many corrections and updates.
    – Nij
    Apr 29 at 12:16
  • Yes, there is a natural right. Yes, income tax is counter to this natural right. No, lots of natural rights are suppressed currently by this state, and worldwide by many other state actors.
    – paulj
    Apr 29 at 12:26
3

1911-1913 very shady time in USA political history. They could amend the Constitution to make a law Constitutional.

There's nothing shady about that in the least. In fact, it is the point of constitutional amendments: to provide a mechanism to change the constitution when it prohibits something that an overwhelming majority of people -- well, of congress and of state legislatures -- think should be allowed.

A constitutional amendment can reverse the provisions of Article I; it can reverse a constitutional ruling by a court (or at least reverse the ruling's effect); and it can certainly overcome arguments by Jefferson and Jackson, which have very little legal weight if any.

Wasn't the whole point of the revolutionary war ...

It doesn't matter what the point of the war was. What matters is that the constitution controls what the government can and can't do, and the constitution can change. The constitution countenanced slavery until it didn't. The constitution required senators to be chosen by state legislatures until it didn't. The constitution forbade income tax until it didn't.

This site is temporarily in read only mode and not accepting new answers.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .