Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct, The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
The government of the United States was authorized to collect taxes from the states, but not the people. The number of representatives and the amount of tax assigned to a state was to be determined by the population of the several states.
The idea was that if 8% of the people live in California, 8% of the Federal Budget would be paid by California. This clause of the Constitution prohibits the direct taxation of the people and sets up a respectable proportion of Representatives to Constituents at "One for Every thirty thousand. The income tax is unconstitutional because it is both a direct and un-apportioned tax in direct violation of the above. And Representation has been equally ignored as evidenced by the fact that we have CLEARLY "exceeded" the ratio - One over Thirty Thousand or 1 divided by 30,000; adjusted for changes in population. As you can see, if the population rises, Representative's numbers rise according to this ratio. This makes perfect sense, because why else would one specify a ratio and use the words "shall not exceed"?
With all this in mind, it is clear we are again experiencing a world where;
We rent those FRN and as government employees we are required to pay ; sorry !
I'm sorry, Joe, that doesn't hold water. What you are saying is that the tax is imposed because we chose to utilize the benefit privilege of discharge of debt as opposed to paying. This cannot be true as the use of FRNs is not a matter of choice since they have removed the possibility of 'paying' in substance. You can't hold a gun to someone's head and then claim he volunteered.
The use of FRNs may impose some sort of lien status on goods purchased with FRNs in favor of the Fed and it might explain some of Govco's actions but one cannot know this for sure unless he is willing to challenge it.
Further, the gov is charged with the protection of the rights of the people of the states. It has no authority to use fraud or coercion to strip them of their inherent rights. That takes a declaration of war and an official policy of stripping them of their rights is a declaration of war.
If you read the books entitled " The law that never was" by Bill Benson, Vol 1 and 2, you will see that the income tax was never legally ratified in all of the states. He went to all the states and found proof. Up until 1913, the Supreme Court about twice declared it unconstitutional. All of a sudden it became Constitutional. I have a copy of the tax code and nowhere does it mention that an individual has to pay taxes. My supervisor owed $3,000. She brought the tax code with her and they told her she didn't owe anything.
I read Benson's 'the Law that Never Was" many years ago and came to the same understanding, however, upon further investigation, it appears constitutionality really doesn't enter the picture at all as the IRS Code is private law and applies to private entities-their privately held straw men that they have convinced most of the people that it is them.
Perhaps if someone would write a book on the presumptions of registered agent and fiduciary status and how to rebut those presumptions we could quit jousting with windmills.
Constitution does enter the picture. The 16th Amendment is unconstitutional because it wasn't ratified and as I said before the tax code actually states there is no law even though it doesn't say the exact wording. I agree with these people on the video and the FBI agents that found out the truth.
Interesting, but also, wasn't there a clause that said something like "domestic" income is not to be taxed? Then I read, years ago, probably while in college; that he amendment to tax was not made law due to a state back east either not voting or voting against; the honchos covered that up and here we are..
The states, which 'were' under a republican form of gov, in their constitutions, do not grant any state the power to impose an income tax. As such, it is impossible for the states to delegate the authority to impose a labor tax to the United States / fed gov.
People who are [ deemed to be ] citizens via the 14th have no protections arising under any state constitution. They are under the same laws as in DC and the rest of the fed areas [ United States ] and the 'United States' is under a completely different system of law from the several states and under that system of law, the power of the gov to impose any tax it wants is perfectly constitutional unless it becomes merely oppressive instead of truly needful.