Tom Cryer, Dr. Elaine and Ed Brown

[piemaker720]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

Ok, I'm gonna try this again. Nobody wants to talk about this, and I cant for the life of me figure out WHY. Everybody SHOULD be talking about it! But there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the taxation of income. What this means is that we've all been lied to and ripped off for years. People pay income tax chiefly out of fear of losing their freedom and property, NOT because the law says they should. When challenged to show the law that authorizes the government to tax income, the IRS's reply is "no comment". They CANT! The federal government has simply side-stepped the U.S. Constitution and involved themselves with issues they have no business being involved in for the sole purpose of control.

I'm sick of the apathy. If we dont all stand together, we'll all fall together.

Very interesting, I'll do some research on this.

[joepole]

>there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the taxation of income.

Except, of course, for the part that specifically does:

"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."

[AnimeSpirit]

Originally Posted by joepole

Except, of course, for the part that specifically does:

"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."

That would be Ammendment 16, ratified 1913. It looks legitimate to me.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[joepole]

Also 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;

[LateNight]

Actually, I think Tom Cryers winning of his case, came down to his argument on exactly "What is income"
I believe it was something like he proved that the definition of Income as defined by the supreme court is NOT income from our labor, but rather things like interest and profit. You CANNOT tax a persons labor because it is a God given right that we may work to support ourselves.

[joepole]

Maybe, but to say "there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the taxation of income" is just flat-out wrong.

The local guy had an interesting argument that won't survive appeal because it was so obviously wrong. The main problem with juries is that most people are stupid.