g
THE
PREMISE
The authority
of the federal government to collect income tax is premised upon the
16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment,
which was allegedly ratified in 1913. In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court
had ruled that a similar federal income tax act adopted in 1894 was
unconstitutional. This deprived the federal government of a potential
source of tax revenue. In 1909, the 16th Amendment was proposed by
Congress to circumvent that decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. By
1913, the process of ratification of the amendment was claimed to
have been completed. Because of the existence of this amendment, the
federal government lays claim to the power to collect this tax from
all of us.
THE
DISCOVERY
Starting
in January, 1984, Bill went first to the capitols of the New England
states and performed his investigative research, using the journals
of the various state legislative bodies to find out how these states
acted upon the proposal by Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution
to permit a federal income tax law. After review of these records,
he began to see that serious problems existed as to whether these
states had legally ratified the same amendment which had been proposed
by Congress. When examination of the records of about 20 states showed
that many had not ratified the amendment and that information regarding
the action taken by these States had been sent to the U.S. Secretary
of State, he determined that records in Washington, D.C. most probably
existed to prove the point.
In August,
1984, Bill traveled to Washington, D.C. to research the historical
records in the National Archives. After several days of pursuing fruitless
leads, he finally found a book that had contained within it all federal
records which had been prepared during the process of amending the
Constitution by the 16th Amendment. This proved to be an exceptional
discovery because those documents revealed that a man named Philander
Chase Knox, the Secretary of State in 1913, was fully aware that the
amendment had not been ratified nonetheless. See Bill Benson's about
the Golden Key. After making this important discovery, Bill decideded
it was essential that he also study the records of all other states
which the federal government claimed had ratified the amendment.
In September,1984,
Bill started investigating the remainder of the states and completed
the project on December 1984. When this year long project was finished
at the end of 1984, Bill knew that not a single state had actually
and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution in the
manner required by law. Such a conclusion obviously meant that the
federal government lacked the power to legally impose and collect
the federal income tax. See defects tabulated in Defects
in Ratification of the 16th Amendment.
To demonstrate
the merits of this argument, an examination of the evidence uncovered
by Bill is essential. The federal government claims that the State
of Kentucky was the second state to ratify the amendment, such action
taking place on February 8, 1910. But, the records of the State of
Kentucky reveal a far different picture. These records show that the
Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and then
sent that resolution to the Senate in early February, 1910. On February
8, 1910, the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected
it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. The Kentucky Senate never
did ratify that amendment, but federal officials, being in possession
of documents showing this rejection, fraudulently claimed otherwise.
A second
interesting situation involves the State of Oklahoma. Here, this proposed
amendment was passed by the Oklahoma House and the language of the
resolution perfectly matched the one passed by Congress. However,
the Oklahoma Senate obviously disliked what Congress had proposed,
so it amended the language of the 16th Amendment in such a fashion
as to have a precisely opposite meaning. After all was settled and
done in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Legislature wanted an amendment which
meant something entirely different than that which was proposed by
Congress.
What
happened in California reveals a comedy of errors. That legislative
assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment
proposed by Congress. However, assuming that a nonexistent vote was
taken, whatever California did adopt bore no resemblance to what Congress
had proposed. And many states engaged in the unauthorized activity
of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a
power that these states did not possess.
The State
of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington,
but this did not deter Philander Knox as he claimed that Minnesota
ratified the amendment regardless of the absence of any documentation
from the State of Minnesota.
THE
FRAUD
Article
V of the U.S. Constitution controls the amending process, which requires
that three-fourths of the States ratify any amendment proposed by
Congress. In 1913, there were 48 States in the American Union, so
to adopt any amendment required the affirmative act of 36 states.
In February, 1913, Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states
had ratified the amendment, including Kentucky, California and Oklahoma.
But, as previously shown, Kentucky had rejected the amendment, California
had not voted on it, and Oklahoma wanted something entirely different.
If just these 3 states are excluded from the court of those which
ratified, then the amendment was not legally adopted, the number of
ratifying States being only 35. But, then again, a total of 11 states
failed to vote on the amendment, 33 changed the language of the amendment
and Minnesota sent in nothing. If the process of the adoption of the
amendment is subjected to strict legal scrutiny the amendment was
adopted by none.
Today,
the federal government pretends that it has all encompassing power
to tax the income of everyone, and that the only way to change this
system is to vote for congressmen who promise to modify or, even more
unlikely, to repeal these laws. The American public needs to be apprised
that another alternative exists, and that it is entirely possible
to challenge the very foundation of this taxing power upon the grounds
that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never adopted.
This challenge can be effectively made by exercising your rights under
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
|
