Crackhead asking dangerous questions

[Gregg]

When I read that it occurred to me that statements made in the Congressional Record don't need to be repealed. If I'm wrong on that, we need a whole new agency just for Ron Paul, James Trafficant and Dennis Kucinich.

[Quixote]

Our arguments are based upon the following quotation taken from page 5679 of the Congressional Record of October 16, 1913. The author, "Judge" Hull, wrote the first "Income Tax" measure under the 16th Amendment and in his synopsis of the Revenue Act of 1913 he gave us this information:

"The statutory exemption of $3,000 is allowed for personal living or family expenses; however, this and other gross income for which special deductions are allowed by the law must be embraced in the return of gross income, and the commissioner of Internal Revenue will make these deductions when he assesses and computes the tax."

This statement has never been changed nor repealed, in fact, the Constitutional Amendment upon which it is based would prohibit the "Personal Exemption" from accomplishing anything less.

Even if Judge Hull had been a tax Tsar whose interpretation of the 16th Amendment trumps that of the Supreme Court, he clearly stated that the personal exemption was statutory and was not an exclusion from gross income, but rather a deduction from gross income. Nothing in his statement concerned the 16th Amendment.

[notorial dissent]

This statement has never been changed nor repealed, in fact, the Constitutional Amendment upon which it is based would prohibit the "Personal Exemption" from accomplishing anything less.

Maybe it's just me, or the time of night, but this last sentence doesn't really make any sense, aside from the general lack of sense the entire argument makes, that is. I think i know where they are trying to go, but they just don't really get there.