Reasonable Action
Welcome! Below is an article by permission of Bill Huff, Editor of the SAP Fellowship news letter "Reasonable Action". Thank you Bill and SAPF. This usually 24 page newsletter comes out about every other month. Below is a small sampling of the many excellent articles from our news letter available only to our members. You are in store for a treat! As members we receive some of the best insightful discussions on issues related to our liberty, as you will soon discover. As citizens of this historically great country of ours let's be sure it remains ours by taking "Reasonable Action"! Enjoy!
Exam Certified Independent Representative for the
Save A Patriot Fellowship
"Reasonable Action"
Newsletter of the SAPF
ARTICLE
The Sixteenth Amendment - It Ain't Broke
The following article appeared in issue # 231 of Reasonable Action, the
members-only newsletter of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship. Reprinted with
explicit permission of the Fellowship.
This article will both propose and clearly show that the seemingly broad language of the Sixteenth Amendment, while it may have been rhetorically designed to deceive the American people, never really did overturn our rights as secured by the Constitution. But, rather, it merely redefined a broad authority that existed from the beginning within a specified context; a context that could never be exceeded without overturning everything the government was originally framed to accomplish - the protection of life and property - PLUS NOTHING!
In our approach we try to distinguish the baby from the wash water before we do anything else. This is nothing more than applying the wisdom of if it ain't broke - don't fix it! This is the very reason why we can say that we are not tax protesters. The IRS may be; the Congress may be; the present Supreme Court may be; legions of welfare recipients may be; but we advocate strict adherence to the law as written, until, and unless we find it to be in conflict with the Constitution. Anyone who argues that the laws must be applied according to the intent of the legislators and pursuant to the Constitution cannot be considered anything less than a true Patriot. His is the only position consistent with the Founders and Framers. He sleeps much better than his enemies. He will ultimately triumph! Whenever he is confronted in anything that could be considered to be an open forum the results are entirely predictable. Madison's notes will never provide supportive documentation for tyranny.
THE WHATEVER FACTOR
If we presume that the Sixteenth Amendment only describes a certain facet of the Congressional taxing powers that existed from the beginning, we may be closer to the mark than any other explanation. Additionally, we will presume that all of the Congressional taxing powers previously granted, and not specifically repealed by the Sixteenth Amendment, must still be fully intact; that we should be able to find evidence that the use of the word whatever (regardless of how broad it seems on its face) must apply only within specific bounds already set by the Constitution since it does not address, repeal, or affect them in any way not specifically stated. Any other admission would be placing some other power as above the supreme Law of the Land.
We should at least mention the other possibilities in passing, so our opponents don't waste time seizing upon them as though we never contemplated them or were oblivious to the obvious. The Constitution could never directly contradict itself without losing its validity. Vagueness in law requires it to be set aside as void because ignorance of the law is no excuse. There is no law or agency (included but not limited to the supreme Court) that possesses a power to interpret the Constitution in any way that would depart from original intent [it will take but little reading in primary source documentation to establish this fact beyond all reasonable doubt - not to mention that this axiom is born out by common sense]. To admit that the Constitution could be changed by other than the provisions of Article V is to excuse carte blanche usurpation - governmental anarchy. To speak of a government agency with the power to alter the Constitution but by the specific means provided in Article V, is to entertain anarchy. The power to change the Constitution has been wisely left beyond the reach of any branch, or even all three branches of the federal government combined. They must lawfully submit their recommendations for any changes determined to be necessary to We The People. This is why we continually expect to catch them going around rather than through it. So far they haven't disappointed us in that, but stay tuned!
In other words, we will proceed with an effort to harmonize the seeming broadness of the Sixteenth Amendment with the other taxing provisions and then support our presumptions with evidence from the implementing regulations. If these concur, we may find that we are at a reasonably clear understanding of how these apparent contradictions can be reconciled without repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and leaving the sovereign totally outside of the Congressional powers to tax as granted by the Constitution.
If the above presumption is true, it is reasonable to expect to find evidence to support it. Further, if it is true, we can expect to find that the tax code, the regulations, and even portions of the Internal Revenue Manual, will support it. The truth should also be consistent with OMB Control Numbers on corollary forms and other documents. Conversely, if it is not true, it should be quite easily disproved and consistently demonstrable by those who oppose or disagree. We will of course require that they work their magic in front of video cameras, in real time, so the public may have a fair chance of evaluating it.
WHAT ARE THE BOUNDS OF WHATEVER?
Remember as you consider this articles presumptions: an absolutely unlimited power of taxation would mean we have an absolutely unlimited government - an absolute tyranny. It doesn't take much imagination to realize the Founders and Framers knew that you could never limit the growth of government if you remove all controls on spending. The only truly effective way to limit spending is to limit appropriations. That's why the purse strings were placed in the hands of theHouse of Representatives. Of course once you have violated your trust and overleaped the lawful bounds of spending, the only way to hopefully from being embarrassed or prosecuted is to search out new revenues the cat is entirely out of the bag. A fiat currency was absolutely essential to the plan. First tell the people they need a central bank to protect their property. Then, when you find out the bank has violated their trust and looted the entire country, shift to a fiat currency to continue the scam. HOW MANY SETS OF BOOKS ARE KEPT BY VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?
That was precisely what happened with the banks before FDR seized the gold. The emergency was the natural effect of banks getting in over their heads by violating the trust of their clients - creating more credit than they could collateralize with gold.
How insidious and wicked it was for FDR to promote rhetoric that anyone who was so presumptuous as to try to withdraw their own gold should be found guilty of hoarding. The banks had been allowed to exist allegedly for the security of private property and convenience, and, of course, to regulate the economy. Banksters had been waiting over a century to put these measures into place. How delicious for the bankers to be able to blame their own victims for their theft. The bankers often win by being more patient than the rest of us.
Ironically, our historical adherence to transcendent absolutes is what drives us to prove the limited nature of government, one way or another. Thankfully, there are still many documents and laws that resonate with the original principles of liberty. Surprisingly, the Internal Revenue Code is one of them. The tax regulations, we are coming to find out more and more, tend to further define the Constitutional proscriptions of the taxing powers of Congress.
All of the other protections and rights spoken of in the Constitution would be at best dubious, if the Sixteenth Amendment really meant what the IRS and tax professionals would have us believe. All rights would be a oxymoronic as the Taxpayers Rights spoken of in all those obsequious brochures from the IRS. They would have us believe that the States surrendered forever to the federal government a plenary [absolute and unconditional] authority to tax without limit for unlimited spending until the demise of the Republic. They would have us believe that taxing is unlimited and that the authority of the federal government is unlimited; that the States have no further viability as entities for preserving the rights and property of citizens; that lawful socialism has arrived, and that it is irreversible; that all the glorious language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be set aside by the lowliest, most illiterate IRS agent. They would have us believe the government can tax everyone they were originally prevented from taxing. This would mean all citizens were now made subjects of a sovereign government with unlimited powers. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
TRUE OR FALSE
To summarize what many IRS agents, Congressmen, the Media, and the educational establishment all believe, or at least act as though they believe. Liberty ended with the Sixteenth Amendment. The government can now lawfully destroy anyone or the entire Republic through its unlimited power to tax as it sees fit. The Sixteenth Amendment changed everything... or did it?
No!
In order to do so, it would have to make reference to the specific provisions within the Constitution that were being overturned [see the 18th and the 21st Amendments to understand the difference in wording necessary to actually repeal a provision of the Constitution].
What did the Sixteenth Amendment do then? The short direct answer: NOTHING!
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 [emphasis added]. - Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Lets break it down into parts:
1
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...This portion is nothing more than a restatement of a power previously granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.
2
on incomes Something called income is to be taxed.
3
...from whatever source derived...It doesn't matter where the income comes from [or does it!?].
4
The tax spoken of here is not subject to the rule of apportionment or related to any census or enumeration.
SUMMARY OF APPARENT INTENT:
The Amendment, on its face, seems to be separating the taxation of incomes from the requirement of apportionment or relationship to population and from any requirement that limits the sources from which it is derived. What elements of the Sixteenth Amendment were already granted previously? Did the Congress have power to lay and collect taxes on the incomes of nonresident aliens and American citizens living and working abroad under a tax treaty?
Yes!
It certainly possessed that power from the
beginning, or at least the potential to exercise it, since those
subjects [by reference to their sources] are outside of the
Constitutional protections of the private property of citizens resident
within the 50 States. The protected class [the citizen living and
working within the States of the Union] is the Sovereign who has
delegated only certain limited powers to the government through the
Constitution. Did the Sixteenth Amendment specifically repeal any
limitation on the Congress with regard to the incomes of those whose
sources were originally outside of its original jurisdiction? Did it
extend the taxing powers of Congress to previously excluded subjects?
Remember, it is not just a question of the definition of income. We
must know whose income is to be taxed; where it came from; where is the
subject of taxation residing; and what is the country of his
citizenship or the creating jurisdiction in the case of its creation as
a business entity. Without these answers, we cannot ascertain the
lawfulness or the Constitutionality of a tax.
WHO'S CRAZY!?
Just for the sake of argument, lets assume Im crazy, but that someone told me we are a nation of written laws only and that I should read the tax regulations to find out what sources of income can be taxed. At least I should be able to be shown by some bright government person the exact location of the wording within the tax regulations that states that the sources from which I have been deriving income, all these years, are included within not only the language of the so-called income tax amendment, but consistently found in the tax regulations themselves. Just between you and me, its amazing how many times we have been disappointed when we ask a government agent to give a straightforward answer and point out a specific reference in the written law. Its just sad to see them, time after time, stumbling over the very laws they are charged to administer - often unable to recognize even the Internal Revenue Code. Their ignorance of the law should strike fear in the hearts of every American who knows what it forebodes. We must not be governed by ignorant thugs or goons.
Lets postulate some puzzle pieces. Did the Amendment specifically state that it was changing any of the other Constitutional provisions regarding taxation?
No!
Did it specifically state that Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, Article I , Section 8, Clause 1 and Article I Section 9, Clause 4 were all REPEALED or modified in such and such a way?
No!
Either those provisions are still in full force and effect, or the Constitution has been rendered superfluous by the Sixteenth Amendment. For, if the government has an unlimited authority to tax, recent history teaches us that it will continue to abuse all other notions of limited government. Otherwise we might likewise believe that continuously increased transfusions of fresh blood will cure a vampire.
Since the Constitution is silent with regard to repealing any or all of the above provisions, we can only expect to eventually find a way in which either the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment can coexist with the earlier provisions; or we have to make new amendments for clarification; or we must accept national annihilation. Without security for property there is no liberty. Without liberty there is no America!
Lets assume the Sixteenth Amendment was intentionally worded to deceive or mislead. Anyone who cannot imagine this to be a reasonable possibility has but to read the Amendment for the first time. Lets also assume that even though it was written to deceive, there are other proofs or references in existence that the establishment purported intent has been implemented to one degree or another.
If that were the case, we might expect to find that there are provisions within other written tax laws that prove to any reasonable person that this must be the case.
If the amendment actually extended the taxing powers of the federal government, we can reasonably expect that there would be statutes, regulations, forms and procedures within the written law providing for the implementation of these new-found powers. We would expect to see evidence that the Amendment was followed almost immediately by new statutes to tax the new subjects of taxation. Does that seem reasonable?
That is, if the Sixteenth Amendment did what the establishment says it did, there would have to be readily available provisions within the written laws of the United States that would prove to any reasonable person that the laws exist, consistent with the Amendment.
Q. What do we find when we go looking for this evidence?
A. Only evidence that supports the fact that the Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation. Once you understand the relationships that exist between the Constitution, the statutes, the regulations, the forms and procedures, and last but certainly not least, the required current OMB Control Numbers, you are beginning to be prepared to ask some of the most discomfiting questions.
There are those who wish to abolish the IRS and the income tax, but these are put to silence in most cases when we simply ask them just which statute they would remove first. If the code doesn't apply to me, I have no compelling interest in abolishing it. I would have no standing in court against it since it doesn't injure me personally. If the Code imposes an income tax only on foreigners here and American citizens living and working abroad, I find it to be consonant with the philosophy of the Founders and Framers. I say enforce it! Don't abolish it!
Are you willing to believe the government [government agents acting outside of limited Constitutional authority] has the self control to limit spending while it has an unlimited authority to tax? Will it balance the budget with a fiat currency system? Why don't we just print a bill of a large enough denomination to pay off the national debt every year [this could be done without any greater violation of trust than has already occurred]? That could be followed by giving everyone an honorary law degree so we could all just sue one another and no one would have to work anymore. Don't we have honorary money already? What we really need to do is tell the children at the Fed that their monopoly money isn't real.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man".-Thomas
Jefferson
A Personal Invitation
I invite those of you who currently may be experiencing challenges with the IRS or just wish to explore your options under the law to message me at:
We will be glad to get back to you.
[
The law says WHAT?!] [ They told the truth!! ]
[ NEW VICTORY EXPRESS!! ] [ HELP US HELP AMERICA! ]
[ Reasonable Action ] [ The Truth Behind the Income Tax! ] [ Products ]
[ Social Security? ] [ Tax Basics 101 ] [ Just the Facts ] [ What is SAP ]
[ UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ] [ GAO AUDITS THE IRS! ]
[ Do you love America? How about the IRS? ] [ Why I did this site ]