If you want proof about the 16th Amendment then watch this video unless you want to remain ignorat, but I assume that you aren't stupid enough to ignore evidence so just watch this movie by Arron Russo called Freedom to Facism and do some reasearch to make sure his claims are true and then please fix your article to make it factual. Thank you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

The problem is that the concept of judicial review was created by a member of the court, creating a system in which unelected judges have the supreme life long authority to create rights (Roe v Wade) and deny them (Dred Scott) as they see fit. That is not, was not the intention of the Judicial Branch. Even if this is the accepted legal theory, it is not a good system and should be changed. Unless the basis for the rulings is "is it specifically mentioned in the Constitution" then the issue should be left to the states to decide.

As for ammending the constitution, Congress has no need to at this point, they already consolidated the power to just ignore the Constitution. Take the Federal war on drugs for example. When alcohol was made illegal on the federal level, they passed a constitutional ammendment to do so, because they understood that the federal government has no authority to ban or legalize a substance without an ammendment. With the war on drugs, we have completely ignored this fact.

The income tax is wrong, even if legal, because it makes you give personal information to the government without a warrant, thus testifying against yourself (5th amendment) in order to be penalized with taxes for your productivity.

And yes, there are many Republicans like myself that are completely fed up with the GOP. They lost me in 2006, but Ron gave me new hope that common sense will prevail.

Jay,

There's "legal" (as in the government says that it can do it to us so therefore it's legal) and then there's legal (as in "In our dealings with each other, let's agree to engage in nothing that can be construed as force or fraud.")

Many, if not most, die-hard Ron Paul supporters (I include myself) tend to be familiar with Frederic Bastiat, one of Dr. Paul's favorite political philosophers.

Bastiat, in his classic work "The Law", stated:

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations — and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests. "

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

I think that a large part of the misunderstanding between Paul's supporters and those that still think there's usefulness and profit in supporting the status quo stem from this point: The Federal government has become a thief and its laws and its officers are accomplices in the theft.

Supporters of the status quo are still behind the learning curve but I have every faith that they'll soon catch up.

Happy New Year,

Jamie

nobody cares.

Wait what, did you just acknowledge the disinformation that fake Paul supporters have been pushing? Niiice.

Its rather obvious when they come out to comment. Usually the comment starts of nice, but quickly leads to racist, aggressive, and foolish talk.

With so many obvious anti-Paul drones roaming around, I'm really surprised that your the first I've read the same ideas from. They were even in a World of Warcraft march.

If Freedom to Fascism isnt your cup of tea.. maybe you will enjoy this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=497251819335380093

I dont subsribe to every view in this 47 min movie.. What I do understand is that the Fed was swindled into power, the income tax IS unconstitutional and not enough states ratified the 16th Amendment.

Do you think George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would have allowed an income tax or central bank?

'I believe banking institutions are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.' T. Jefferson

The irony I see out of this election.. Is that our leaders have perverted the original intent of the Constitution to the point where we dont have any rights left. And when a potential presidential leader comes along with a great understanding of 'the law of the land', he is rediculed every step of the way.

Since when has the Constitution become radical? What kind of country have we become when we dont have our basic rights anymore? Take a good look at the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and the North American Union if you think we have soveriegnty or our rights.

Ron is right. America is slipping into a soft form of fascism. The heart breaking part is.. Most people dont see it or care.

'The people will never complain about losing the second amendment right.. until they need it.' T. Jefferson

Its a sad day in America when people willingly give up rights for security.. Ben Franklin warned us about that.

KMoore122311:56AMDec 22nd 2007
Liberty is not the natural order of things. It is extreme. It has existed in a relatively small place for a relatively short period of time. Ron Paul is extreme. He wants elected officials to honor their oath of office. He wants this country and posterity to enjoy the blessings of liberty by going back to the future, Back to our Constitution.

A Ron Paul Presidency would usher in a return to the Constitutional principles of limited government, just taxation, fiscal responsibility, sound money, strong national defense and individual rights.

Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul is a man of principle and integrity.
He's as incorruptible a politician as there ever was.

What would we think if China had a military base here in Florida and battle groups constantly patrolling in the Gulf of Mexico? What if China was openly and/or covertly subverting our political process? What if they forcibly removed our elected leaders and installed their puppet government? We wouldn't like it and we would revolt. Our Federal Government's interventionist foreign policy is what led to 9-11 and will continue to inspire hatred and terrorism against us unless we change policy. As a nation, we need to recognize this or we will never even begin to solve this problem.

They don't hate us for Who we are.
They hate us for What we do.

For the sake of our children:
Vote Ron Paul!

How bout it Jay, prove these people wrong, I DARE YOU.

I don’t know about Ron Paul and his stance on the 16th Amendment but I do know about Bill Benson. Look at the book yourself, then go to each state of your choosing and look at what was ratified. Easy for you to prove that these people are all kooks. With the internet you can order most documents for a couple of bucks.

Please contact Bill Benson directly. He wrote this book, "The Law That Never Was," Volume I & II (1985). About 30 years ago, he stumbled on the fact that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the states. He went to every state and made legal copies of what each state voted on and put them in his book. In 1913, Philander Knox, then Secretary of State announced that all the states ratified the Amendment just before he left office. I stumbled upon Benson on CSPAN when he had a hearing that the IRS was to be at but did not show.

Every source document that Bill Benson uses that I checked were the same as what he published and is the same as what he has filed with the courts. At this point neither the court, the IRS or Representatives will redress his grievances. If you know any congress people, many know about this issue but do not know what to do about it and not have their lives destroyed.

I file and pay my income tax every year and I am audited every year.
Enjoy

Eh. There's some question about the 'jots and tittles' of the ratification of said amendment, but I'll let it go. Yes, the income tax is clearly 'legal', being that the amendment is sufficiently broad in language to make any kind of tax that enters the heads of the world improvers in washington 'legal'.

It is, of course, monumentally stupid, as well, but that's just my opinion. The revolutionary war was fought primarily over 'taxation without representation', but, in our system, congress has the power of the purse and is elected democratically, meaning that the system of taxation provides disproportionate taxation to those with means compared to their representation. There is a reason the constitution declared the federal government would run on a head tax computed in substantially the same way the congressional seats were apportioned.

Oh, well. What the progressives insist on showing at every turn is how intelligent the writers of the constitution actually were. Many of the 'problems' we face now were addressed in long since ignored verbiage.

This is one reason I support Dr. Paul, despite being not aligned with him completely on things such as immigration and abortion, although I do concur that abortion is and of a right ought to be a states' right.

For the sake of your womb, or if you care that women, not the GUMMINT, decides what to do with her own body, tell Ron Paul to GTH. He supports changing the Constitution to make ZYGOTES "persons" --- with more protections than the women carrying them.

Dear Jay,
I would (sincerely) like to give you the opportunity to prove to us (readers) that the personal income tax is, in fact, "legal and Constitutional". I think it would make for interesting reading because, honestly, no one I have read saying it is legal has been able to provide proof (at least by my reasoning standards) that it is "legal and Constitutional".
I look forward to reading your proof!

6. Many (probably most) Ron Paul supporters understand that the federal income tax is legal and constitutional. Many Ron Paul supporters also want to scrap the federal income tax....

The federal income tax isn't ever a federal tax its a private tax on our wages which wait....isn't legal!!!

There is no law that say's you must pay a federal income tax TRY TO FIND IT!

What I learned about Jay Hancock

- He is a beneficiary of the current fascist nation, and will fight to keep it that way.
- He trys the generalize a diverse group of people in hopes it will decrease their creditability.
- He is ignorant of what is 'really' happening and the reasons for it.

Aaron Russo's video is boring, inaccurate and sensational. It's like watching a kookier Michael Moore.

The federal income tax is legal. If you don't believe, go ask a judge.

By the way, I support Ron Paul because of his deep sense of freedom. Go Ron Paul, restore America's heart - 'for the people, by the people'...

It's irrelevant whether the income tax is legal or not. It should be abolished. Virtually all liberty lovers know that

1) the income tax is legal
2) the income tax is immoral

Life expectancy went up 20.9 years from 1900 to 1950. This was a result of the Laissez Faire boom of the late 19th, early 20th century. Life expectancy went up only 8 years from 1950 to 2000. Big government doesn't work. Social Security is a failure. Government funded health care is a failure.

Median wages have barely grown since 1971. For the 25-34 demographic, median wages are lower today than they were in 1971!

It's time to return to peace, freedom and prosperity. No more centralized banking. No more big government military industry complex. No more costly foreign military engagements (Americans are taxed to maintain 700 military bases in over 130 countries). It's time to cut the crap and live life. Go America! Go Ron Paul!

"How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-George Washington

The progressive federal income tax is a communist idea that was twice defeated in America's past. Its time to defeat it again. The founding fathers did not believe in punishing people for working hard or stealing the fruits of their labor. They would not have written the constitution to support the confiscation of people's paychecks. Sorry.

You didn't learn any of that from us... you decided it yourself.

You know what happens when you ass-u-me?

Anyway, the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the States, which means it's not an Amendment.

If you want to learn something from us Ron Paul people, you could.. you don't have to cherry pick what we teach you. We're the only ones who apparently care to look into the issues and our country.

We're sorry if we reference our source material... We're sorry you see that as stealing intellectual property. We probably know more about settled law, and all forms of law, more than you or most. I can say this honestly because I know that Tax law isn't as settled as you think and most Ron Paul people don't think it's legal.

All Ron Paul supporters ask for out of journalists is intelligence, research and fairness. We as voters have spent a great deal of time learning about Dr. Paul and the other people running. As journalists, we know you've done almost none. We know because you're always wrong. Then you say "why do they hate us?"

We don't hate you... we're just frustrated with the low bar you've set in our country, the former home of the free press.

Journalists and pundits need to understand that it's not good enough to say a thing, the thing must also be true.

When it's not true, you get a million emails in all caps from people who know what you say is either wrong or a lie. Live with it... you can't be anti-American, like you are now, and also be popular, Washington/NYC People.

If you're not anti-American, prove it. Put up or shut up. Do your jobs. The intellectual property you're so proud of creating, has been bankrupt.

God Bless the United States of America, and may she again have her people at the helm.

There is no law by which Congress has "expressly" extended the authority of the Secretary, the Commissioner and the IRS to the several states pursuant to 4 USC § 72.
In fact, in the case of Walden v. U.S., #A-05-CA-444-LY, U.S. District Court, Austin, TX, the government asked for a protective order so they did not have to answer the questions relative to 4 USC § 72. Moreover, Walden and others have filed a criminal complaint, written by David Myrland
with over 80 members of Congress regarding said protective order and other issues, including, but not limited to, 4 USC § 72.
When the federal and/or state governments and their agents refuse to show one law that satisfies the mandate of 4 USC § 72, - then - is it a crime for one to be forced to speculate that no law exists, that Congress has not "expressly" extended the authority of the Secretary to the several states and that there is no duty for one to file a return or pay any particular alleged tax, allegedly made so by laws which have not been "expressly" extended to the several states?

Checks and Balances:

"The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The Legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment." - Alexander Hamilton - in the Federalist, No.78

See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 249, 40 S.Ct. 550, 551 (1920).

This IS a BALANCE, a system of checks and balances among the three branches of American gov't, which has been defeated by the IRS through the complexities of the Tax Code. This balance is found in the Tax Code itself. The judiciary is to blame for allowing the IRS to exist in its present form. When law is not the foundation of taxation it may be said to have been taxation without representation, meaning that when our representatives (Congress) are not in control of how much is collected as "taxes" the taxation takes place without them or their influence. It is the judiciary and the executive which are acting together in contravention of Congress and its role in American government.

The Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The Federal Reserve System
founded by Rockefeller in 1913. Is composed of 12 private banks which create money out of nothing and then lend it to the U.S. government at usury. It is the most colossal system of usury and fraud that has ever been invented.

On June 4, 1963 President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, signed executive Order 11110, gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated, the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation.

No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
In the ancient world the usurer quickly became owner of most of the country and had all the silver and gold. Then the peasants became slaves or revolted. Under the paper system, the final collapse can be postponed by printing more fake money. Inflation is the handmaid of the paper system. It is economic warfare and more deadly than an invading army because it comes from the enemy within.

"If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

'You are a den of vipers, I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.'
-President Andrew Jackson

"I believe that if the people of this Nation fully understood what Congress has done to them in the last 49 years, they would move on Washington ; they would not wait for a election......It all adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States"
-George W. Malon, U.S. Senator (Nevada) speaking before Congress in 1957.

In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,
Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said:
"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy America's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."

Wow, bloggers are getting some attention. I assume that is why you have blogged your minimalistic opinions about income tax and it's legality regarding the average worker. Therefore, I will direct my reply to an adult with the capacity of a child. Look here child, when you have done all of the required research you will find that the common folk own their labor. That means it is "Personal Property". Maybe, if you have some spare time to look for facts you may check into numerous findings of our Supreme Court regarding this matter. Do you understand? Have I lost you yet. If you need help, I have a 14 year old daughter who can help you with your research as your blog concludes you have done very little. As far as blogging on politics, stick to what you really know, like increasing your blog readership by posting rediculous findings that can be found on Google in the news section???

Well Jay, you may be a business columnist. How the hell that makes you a constitutional law expert, I don't know. This much is obvious: You simply are good at spouting the party line.

Revelations always come from the margins. Some of them hold water, others don't.

I don't accept that an income tax is legal Neither did Tom Cryer.

Jay, if you are intersted, in a fresh idea, "The truth", check this out: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855. Tom Cryer, a Shreveport Louisiana lawyer bitchslapped the IRS and the DOJ before a jury of his peers. Did they retry him on more trumped up charges? Not a chance. They want this one to GO AWAY.

For additional information about the man and the trial, readers can tune in to: www.truthattack.org

Can we lay off the sarcasm and personal attacks? I'm a staunch Ron Paul supporter, and I think the nastier blog commenters are giving him a bad name. We should discuss the ideas, not the people -- as Dr. Paul correctly pointed out, his popularity stems from the message, not the man.

I watched the intro to the Russo film, and I read up on it online. The criticisms of his methods were legitimate; they reminded me of Michael Moore's methods, and I hated getting duped and manipulated by him. States alleged to have 'ratified with changes' contained, for the most part, only typographical or capitalization (!) errors which did not change the obvious intent of the various states. That's why the judge ruled that the amendment was properly ratified.

I think the fact that we could still finance spending levels from 10 years ago if we abolished the income tax tomorrow, suggests it is genuinely a viable option -- it certainly opened my eyes! The income tax is legal, yes, but I hope with Ron Paul we can explore alternatives and maybe even get rid of it entirely.

I'm not ignorant of "settled law"; I just don't believe in it. I don't believe it is moral to say, "sorry, we've made the rules for you, and they can't be changed now: they're settled forevermore". Law was made for man, not man for law (to paraphrase the maker of law). Man cannot be imprisoned by that which is meant to serve him. The same was said of government by the founding fathers, and I agree with them about that too.

Jay,

I have spent a considerable amount of time researching the Income Tax, and I have concluded that it does not apply to individuals.

It may be 'legal', but that doesn't mean I owe it. There is evidence that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. In any case, the legal definition of the word 'income' is crucial, and doesn't always mean the same thing.

Aside from that, if the IRS and the Federal Reserve are legit branches of our national government, why have they never been audited? When was the last time you ever heard of an IRS agent being held accountable for their actions?

"If you don't believe, go ask a judge." Sorry, Federal judges cannot be trusted on this issue. Even if they did give out free legal advice (haven't seen this happen, ever), they're part of the problem. And they are above the law. When was the last time you ever heard of a Federal judge being held accountable for their actions? There are things going on in Federal courtrooms in this country that never see the light of day.

Google 'black robed mafia'.

I have never once in my 12 years of adult life ever voted for a president because they were all knuckel heads. For the first time in my life I will vote for Ron Paul. In my view he is the only hope for America.

Go away N.A.U and Nation Id Card. We the people dont want your enslavement and your drugs any more.

With Love,
Daniel

What I love about Ron Paul's run for the presidency is that we get to hear and read all sorts of interesting discussions about taxes, gold, war, welfare, foreign policy, federal reserve, etc. Go to almost any Ron Paul article and the comments are great! There are some crazies out there but all-in-all the Ron Pauls folks are well read, intelligent and passionate.

Just imagine what we'll get to enjoy when Dr Paul is elected President. This could be the best fours years of education that the American people will ever get and they won't have to pay a dime for it. In fact, they will get to go to "school" and get "paid" for it in the form of a reduced federal government.

I for one am tired of working four months out of the year just to pay this "legal" income tax. How can anyone defend this theft of my wages? AND YOURS! All the services provided to me are funded on the local level.

It seems that columnists and critics of Ron Paul cannot find a possible thing to criticize Ron Paul about. Why is that? Because Ron Paul's platform is the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ron Paul has an impeccible voting record and impeccible character.

So that is why so many journalists are not writing about Ron Paul's positions or quotes, but instead are wrting about Ron Paul's SUPPORTERS.

Why don't you focus more media space and time talking about Ron Paul himself, the candidate? I cannot think of any other candidate that has so little written about him/her in comparison to what is written about his/her supporters.

To learn about Ron Paul and his POSITIONS, Google "Ron Paul 2008" or YouTube "Ron Paul"

Go Ron Paul 2008!

Jay Hancock business columnist for The Sun, did you have to go to school to aquire such a position? I would assume so. Let me know so I can tell my slacker friends where they can go to get an a degree without ever doing any homework. I assume thats where you learned not to. It amazes me that as a jounalist that an editor would let you ever publish an article, much less associate their paper with your blog.

Good luck with your next piece of investigative reporting.

"Many Americans, however, appear to be innocent of ideas of settled law, legal precedent, the authority of the nation to amend the Constitution and the authority of the courts to interpret Constitutional amendments. For example: What matters, some believe, is not the definition of "incomes" in the 16th Amendment as held by countless federal judges, but what THEY think "incomes" means or what they claim those who wrote the amendment thought it meant."

It is called "constitutional review", and it is a right and duty of all citizens to undertake it regarding every action of the government. Since 1803 in Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has usurped (stolen) this power and claimed it is the sole realm of the courts to interpret the law. However, they were never delegated that power nor is this right and duty restricted from the jurisdiction of the citizen.

The courts opinion is based upon the courts decision (screwed up legal concept called "stare decisis" in which precedent is alleged to overrule the actual law). My opinion is based upon an exhaustive objective and rational search and analysis of the actual laws, statutes, history, words, meanings, etc, etc, etc. The court only points to the court and says "See, we said so, and we still say so, so we are right, because we say we are right". It is the court that claims their opinion is validated solely the virtue of it being the courts opinion. My opinion is not validated by the fact that I believe it, or that I say it, but because I have actual sources of law and logic and truth to rely upon. If one objectively examines the court decisions regarding the income tax there is an obvious lack of regard for the law, Constitution, rights, delegated powers, etc.

Dear Jay Hancock - as a journalist you have an obligation to seek the truth. Blindly accepting the word of the courts as the truth doesn't qualify as journalism, it is just repeating the official story. Are you a journalist or government spokesperson?

Granted it is far easier to accept the government's word than to wade through tens of thousands of pages of legal documents, court decisions, statutes, and the Internal Revenue Code, but that is no excuse for failing to investigate and understand what you are talking about.

One's constitutional rights do not apply to the income tax. For example, the constitutional amendment against slavery and involuntary servitude doesn't apply to the involuntary servitude of spending vast amounts of time attempting to understand and follow the labyrinth of IRS procedures. I file a 1040EZ and there is still more than a thousand pages of reading relevant to filing this, the simplest of all tax returns. What is the courts explanation of why the prohibition of involuntary servitude doesn't apply?

"if the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment." Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954)

In other words, the 13th Amendment does not apply because they meant a different form of :"Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954), the Court of Appeals stated that "Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954), the Court of Appeals stated that "involuntary servitude" than the involuntary servitude imposed by the income tax code. Mmm.

Why doesn't the Fifth Amendment apply? Same reasoning, it doesn't apply. Why not any other right, amendment, or part of the Constitution or common law apply? Because it doesn't apply, because the courts said so. So the courts and government and now Jay Hancock claim. What is the source? The courts. What is the proof? The courts. What is the law? The courts.

Anyone with a superficial knowledge of America's legal system should realize that the courts do not have the power to waive the entirety of the Constitution and legal system to enforce the income tax statutes.

Again, please don't believe me or my opinion - form your own based on the actual laws, the actual Constitution, and the actual opinions and actions of the courts. If you have a marginal amount of respect for the truth then you won't be able to agree with the courts and government regarding the income tax even if you still disagree with myself. The violations of the Constitution and the law are quite flagrant, but they are cloaked in huge quantities of legalese, IRS nonsense talk, and tons of filler material, but the truth is out there for anyone willing to look for themselves.

"For example: What matters, some believe, is not the definition of "incomes" in the 16th Amendment as held by countless federal judges, but what THEY think "incomes" means or what they claim those who wrote the amendment thought it meant."

To clarify: "income" means what income meant at the time of the Amendment. Not what I say, not what the courts or Congress decides. The power to redefine words to meet one's purpose is a power with no limit - and a power not delegated to any branch of the federal government. To illustrate the danger of this usurped power:

Say the government passes a 10 percent tax on soda. The courts then decide "soda" means any and all forms of food, drink, and anything ingested by a person. Is that "the law"? Is that really what "soda" means? Nope, and that "logic" doesn't apply to the meaning of income either. A through investigation of the word "income" and it's meanings and history reveals quite clearly that the income tax does not apply to wages. That is not merely my opinion, it is the truth, which I can see as plainly as the green grass outside my window. I open my eyes, I look outside, and I see the grass, and I see what color it is. You may form your opinion, and cite a unbroken series of court decisions claiming the grass is blue, but it isn't so nor does their opinion make so any more than my opinion makes it green. It is what it is, and that is the truth, and it is available for all to see should they choose to look.

Kudos to Jamie above for pointing to Bastiat's brilliant work "The Law" - a must read for all persons of this world.

Guess you needed to up the hit counts for your advertisers. Wise choice jabbing Ron Paul supporters, as you know we'll read your trash because it references him.

Legal precedent is fine, until the precedents pile on top of each other through time, eventually toppling over and "proving" that the Constitution means the opposite of what it says, and the opposite of what those who wrote it said it meant.

I'm not talking about the income tax in this case, but about the Commerce Clause, which was contorted through Wickard v. Filburn to mean what James Madison (who wrote it) said it would never mean.

Ahhh, how cute. Another negative article on Ron Paul and this one, weather you believe it or not, supports giving 35% of what we make, to the government to take care of the lazy people of this country and wage illegal wars around the world to benefit big oil and big business that call the shots in Washington. Wake up and join the R3volution for pete's sake.

Seems to me your ideas aren't worthy enough to be noticed by society so you have to bring ron paul and his supporters into it. Get a life man.

ARE YOU KIDDING? *MOST* Ron Paul supporters KNOW that the income tax is ILLEGAL, always has been.

I don't consider myself crazy, but the existence of the IRS just doesn't seem constitutional.

last time i checked it says the Congress.

it's the same illegality that exists with the Federal Reserve Bank.

It's the Congress' job to handle this, for better or worse, and to allow an independent organization that is not part of the elected body is antithetical to the constitution, and even the though of such a concept should awaken us to the reality that we are the sovereign here not this country, this country derives it's power from us.

if we repeal consent, it will fail.

Why would anyone need to troll or pretend to support Ron Paul when so many people are motivated to support him simply by their deep appreciation for his message? Why stigmatize people who are exercising their freedoms? Paul supporters are just like the supporters of Hillary and Giuliani except they know a whole lot more about the constitution, history, and the bias of the MSM. When I read the posts on this blog, I do not find evidence for your slanted stereotyping of Ron Paul fans.

Fascist authoritarian yellow journalism.

With a Name like Hancock, you might want to get a copy of the Federalist Papers and read the friggin constitution.

Vote and support RON PAUL, you you simply Hate America, and hate the founders of this country.

Paraphrasing Jay Leno: 'Let's give Iraq our Constitution, we don't seem to be using it any more.' I did not realize this only a couple of years ago. Now I realize why the US is headed for eventual 2nd nation (or worse) status. Because we are no longer a nation governed by law (the constitution). If our branches of government can simply "push aside" the constitution whenever convenient, then our constitution will continue to become more and more abused and eventually completely void.

This is the only time I am convinced that there is one candidate who will put the Constitution 1st. That is Ron Paul!

Run along now doggie, good boy! Roll over, now play dead, now go write some more drivel about Ron Paul. Good boy!

Ken
www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com

Please ignore the crazies that show up and post about the income tax being illegal. The vast majority of us Paul people know it's perfectly legal. Thanks for affording us that benefit in your article. And to anyone that posts a link to F&F, I've seen it and it's not that good of a movie. I've donated around $500 to Paul if it matters.

The IRS is legal and Constitutional?

Really?

I'll bet you can't explain this:
http://indymedia.us/en/2007/10/27793.shtml
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071229/NEWS01/712290348/1060/NEWS01

Bloggers like you are very queer, I can't figure if your just arrogantly ignorant, or if you are greed influenced to print propaganda

You also need to look into the comprehensive annual financial reports. I think you can find info by serching for CAFR. All of these issues matter, the 16th really does pose a threat to freedom, the fed does pose a threat to peace and security. To think these various institutions such as the IRS don't have a vested interest in keeping people funneling funds into their coffers maybe one of the most foolish or naive beliefs that I can recall. Maybe you should ask yourself what the meaning of "value" actually means or even "economic". An excellent text to peruse would be "End of Economic Man" or something written by Derrick Jensen, whom goes into great detail about how violence underlies all financial transactions that exploit the resources of the landbase. These books are not right nor left just plain and forward thinking about why we are hurting and destroying the real "value" by wiping out the landbase. If I can't walk out into my backyard and find fresh food growing in abundance, then my existence depends on someone shipping food into my community, this wipes out independence as well as motive to care about my environment. Why care about the farms around me if my food can be dumped into my community from some other country. These aspects contribute to these belief systems in these "bubbles" that ultimately put off the real work of taking care of ourselves, and promoting dependence on welfare or the tax based system. We don't need more taxes and welfare when these only serve to destroy our farms or environments. I'm tired of watching plots of forest around me being wiped out so Weyerhouser can suck value out of my landbase for phony financial schemes that just rip these borrowers off in the end, then foreign countries come in and purchase these loans or porperties so this society becomes ever more decimated and homeless. Maybe this nonsense has to come to an end, sorry, but the jig maybe up on spooky finances at a distance.

If that's all you have learned you didn't pay that close of attention. It all comes down to monetary policy, that you never even mentioned. What I learned from your piece is that the ability to filter thru vast amount of info is not your strong suit. In regards to the 16th Amendment, it has always been controversial and continues to be. If it's illegal or not is irrelavant and the point is that it's hurts families and workers. Simply compare the total amount of taxes payed for by individual to that of corparations.
Then compare the money earned by both of these groups then you will understand better. What I have learned from the Dr. Ron Paul compaign is that people do better research that journalist. But you dont have to agree with me and hopefully we can keep that fact alive. Go RP

If Ron Paul is so wrong, the why does he feel SO RIGHT?! :) Dr. Paul cured my apathy! We've got hope for America!

Hmm...

And you are a business columnist for The Sun or Faux?

Oh wait I forgot, they really did say "No experience necessary..."

The internet is a wonderful tool for education. Appearantly you have not taken advantage of the internet.

Oh yeah, and its easy to condemn an entire group of people just on a few individuals actions.

Its more difficult to be a man and admit that you're wrong.

Jay is just another MSM paid shill. Just leave this troll alone.

I don't look badly at any Ron Paul supporters. You might not agree with some of their tactics or what they say but they are passionate and are support the right ideas and the right guy.

I'm sure it took a whole boat load of loonies to cause the American Revolution . God save the American Revolution loonies!

To all those who support the popular status quo candidates and system;

McDonald's is the worlds most popular restaurant but do you really think the food is all that good tasting and good for you?

If you do then you deserve the fat bloated useless body you end up with.

Personally I prefer the lean government that lets me choose for myself, but hey if you like garbage shoved down your throat by all means support the same ol' same ol'.

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I think that Russo's Freedom to Fascism is the worst piece of garbage out there.

The man knows nothing about what a law is or how it gets created and his suggestion that the income tax is not legal and thus one does not have to pay it without penalty is lunacy and harmful to all who believe its drivel.

Not all of Ron Paul's supporters are fooled by such nonsense. In fact, only the most intelligent people I know support Ron Paul. The general average person out there is too poorly educated to understand Ron Paul - including most of the reporters.

Our education system has fallen to new lows these past few decades and the folks coming out of college can barely write a sentence let alone understand something slightly complex like the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul is the man for the people and the people are too easily manipulated to know that. It is very very sad that the jailees are doing all they can to get more jailors in place.

Ron Paul is the only candidate offering the key to freedom. If you want to learn something go to www.ronpaullibrary.org and READ.

A proponent of the 16th Amendment stated the following as it relates to an "Income Tax" "Before I conclude I want to say to the laboring men of this country if you want real protection, manhood and womanhood protection, stand up for that party which proposes to place you on an equal level before the law; that gives you the right to trade and labor with the world; that proposes to make the property of this country pay the burdens of keeping up the Government; that proposes to see to it that immense fortunes are not made to be expended abroad out of the results of your labor while you are starved at home; that proposes to place it within your power to buy the necessities of life without the burden of any tax or protection whatever; and let me call your attention, laboring men of the United States, to the fact that the men who are standing here and so eloquently and so earnestly defending protection are ridiculing and denouncing an income tax, when every one of them knows, as well as he knows who puts up his campaign funds for him, that an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States. [Great applause] pg 57 " Now tell me what was meant to be taxed as "income" when taking into consideratioin the congressional intent as to what was not to be taxed as income.

Senator Chilton from West Virginia, speaking before the Senate on 28 August 1913 concerning the income tax, stated:

It is provided that the ‘income derived from salaries, wages,’ and so forth,
shall be included. It has to be income before it can be taxed, no matter how
it is derived. We could say that only income from salaries or income from
property or income from interest should be taxed. We have simply mentioned certain things; but they must be income before they can be taxed. We use the very language of the Constitution.

The Senator was explaining that the tax is not on the property, the interest, the salaries, nor the wages. These items broadly defined in the income tax amendment as sources. The Internal Revenue Service explained quite succinctly, in their Internal Revenue Service Publication #525 (Rev. Nov. 81):

Wages and salaries are the main source of income for most people.

Mr. David E. Dickinson., a Graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, and a Director of the Legislation and Regulation Division in the Office of the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service, and being involved in drafting legislation and preparation of regulations, stated on the witness stand, under oath, concerning the Sixteenth Amendment;

A...It says lay and collect taxes on income. Q...Okay. Does it say, in there, lay -- excuse me, to lay and collect tax on sources, at all? A....Well no. You don’t tax a source, you tax income. Mr. Krzyske. Q...Okay. So sources are not taxable; is that correct? They may possibly be an avenue to obtain income; is that correct? A...That’s correct. Q...But the sources, themselves, are not income; is that correct? A...No, of course they’re not.

United States v Kevin Krzyske U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Southern Division 84-CR-90010-AA Trial Transcript pg 19 20 June 1985
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed, if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration. -Abraham Lincoln
If labor is the superior of capital and capital is not taxed how is that labor can be taxed?

While an "Income Tax" has been judicially determined to be legal by those who benefit by its existence, namely the federal judges whose salaries and pensions are dependent on it. I don't believe it is being properly (and dare I say legally) implemented and enforced. Govco's reliance on the populace filling out the forms under threat and coercion in compelling people into swearing under penalty of perjury that they owe the Govco something is not a very strong position for Govco to continue on with the sham. BTW - What ever happened to the old rule that a judge would recuse himself when a conflict of interest arises? What a way to go into court, with both or sometime all three parties Judge, Prosecutor, and Public defender all feeding from the same trough. The income tax trough. Yeah...that's seems fair and just. N OT!

In Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 60 L. Ed. 493, 496 (1915)

Chief Justice White, recognizing the confusion that existed concerning these taxes, stated, in the opinion of the Court:

...the confusion ...arises from the conclusion that the sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it,... ...it clearly results
that the proposition and the contentions made under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement
that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the
Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity
applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one
State or States than was levied in another State or States. This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1, 11, 12 (1915)

It is later stated in this case:

...the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax
although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been
recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without
foundation...Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1, 18 (1915)

The Chief Justice reiterated this in another case:

...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth
Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the
previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by
Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment..Stanton v Baltic Mining Company 240 US 103, 112 (1915)

Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, stated:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.
This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual
depreciation of the rights, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis." Edward A. George H. Boyd v United States 116 US 616, 635 (1886)

Zee:

"He supports changing the Constitution to make ZYGOTES "persons" --- with more protections than the women carrying them."

As a leftish libertarian, abortion is one area where I disagree sharply with Ron Paul, who has a clear social-conservative streak. (Immigration and gay issues also fall under that category.)

However, I think you've misrepresented his position on abortion. He is in fact non-pro-choice but I don't think he supports a constitutional amendment or any kind of federal control over the issue.

If Americans vote for their president on the bases of his/her religion, ethnicity, likability, or gender and not due to their ideals and charactor then we will not have, nor deserve, a free and democratic country.