New Arguments...

[Investor]

Wow, it's been a long time since I've been on this board. Are there any new crazy arguments these days, or are the TP's still spouting 861 nonsense and Citizen v. citizen garbage?

[Demosthenes]

Welcome back Investor.

[Investor]

How about Brushaber? Are they still citing Brushaber? That one always slays me.

[Quixote]

John Bulten's argument might be new, but it's hard to tell because he refuses to tell anyone what it is.

[Demosthenes]

I've been seeing a new argument all week and it's spreading like wild fire. The 16th Amendment was ratified but Congress forgot to pass the bills to implement it, so even if there is authority for an income tax, Congress has never chosen to take advantage of it.

I've come across four posts on different forums in just the past few days spouting this nonsense.

[Nikki]

Okay, am I missing something here?

Does a ratified constitutional amendment require enabling legislation?

[Famspear]

Only in la-la land.

[Investor]

Okay, am I missing something here?

Does a ratified constitutional amendment require enabling legislation?

enabling legislation, pixie dust, a blessing by three virgin dwarves...the typical stuff you need to pass the law of the land.

[Nikki]

Thank you. My CLE hasn't been focused on Constitutional law. I appreciate the update.

[Paul]

The 16th Amendment was ratified but Congress forgot to pass the bills to implement it, so even if there is authority for an income tax, Congress has never chosen to take advantage of it.

Oh, no! They must be close to finding that it was my great grandfather's doing. The day before he retired from the Government Printing Office, he slipped the original IRC - his own creation - into the Statutes at Large just to prove that no one in Congress or the White House paid any attention to what was actually being published under their supposed authority. Subsequent Congresses just assumed that the implementing legislation had been enacted.

Just before he died, he told me he did regret "taxing" wages.

[Nikki]

Webhick, why are you posting under Paul's name?

[webhick]

a blessing by three virgin dwarves

Oh, now you're just being preposterous. Those three dwarves are easier than a two piece wooden puzzle - with handles!

If you really want a legal amendment, you have to take 50 mimeographed copies, marinade them in finest Masonic Rum, then sauté them in some butter with Caribbean spices. Drain. Separate onto a plate and leave on your kitchen counter to cool overnight. Once cool, you must mail one of the 50 pieces (certified, return receipt) to the Designated Masonically Blessed Virgin Lesbian Belching Canary in each state. Don't get that Canary confused with the Puking Pigeon of Parthenon. They're easy to mix up. So refer to the contact list on page 4576 of your Illuminati Handbook.

So anyway, once the Canaries get the amendment, they'll sing a woeful tale of death and peppermint to the fleas in the weeds who will then tear the amendment to shreds and carry it to the Illuminati State HQ. From there, it will be delivered to the maid with the hot pink undies who will then tape it back together. He will then pass it onto janitor with the see-through tutu who will then drop it off in the secret mail chute buried behind the ugly sofa that no one wants to sit on. Later that evening it inducted into the state's constitution via a secret meeting in the bowels of the public bathroom in the capital building. I cannot say who will be in attendance, since they're chosen based on chili consumption within the past 24 years.

[webhick]

Webhick, why are you posting under Paul's name?

Paul seriously needs to give my happy pills back.

[John J. Bulten]

Wow, it's been a long time since I've been on this board. Are there any new crazy arguments these days, or are the TP's still spouting 861 nonsense and Citizen v. citizen garbage?

Nothing new here, Investor. We losthorizons.com types are just busy upholding the laws and regulations as written, like 26 USC 7701(c) and 26 CFR 403.5. May Heaven forbid that we should ever nonsensically construe these authorities to mean other than what they say (CT National v Germain, 503 US 249).

[Dezcad]

May Heaven forbid that we should ever nonsensically construe these authorities to mean other than what they say (CT National v Germain, 503 US 249).

Investor - May I introduce you to our resident King of Irony.

[Investor]

Investor - May I introduce you to our resident King of Irony.

I don't think Mr. Bulten was around when I was last here. I am interested (for lack of a better word) to hear his gripe with the "fascist tax system".

And don't get me wrong, Bulten, I have serious issues with the tax system as well. One of them is not that it is unconstitutional or illegal, however.

[Famspear]

The king of unintentional irony.

[silversopp]

Okay, am I missing something here?

Does a ratified constitutional amendment require enabling legislation?

A Constitutional Amendment does require some legislation in order for it to be effective. What good is an Amendment if there's no penalties for violating it? Prohibition, with no penalties for selling alchohol, isn't really prohibition. Income taxes, with no penalties for tax evasion, isn't really an income tax.

The IRS Code gives the 16th Amendment it's teeth.

[Investor]

A Constitutional Amendment does require some legislation in order for it to be effective. What good is an Amendment if there's no penalties for violating it? Prohibition, with no penalties for selling alchohol, isn't really prohibition. Income taxes, with no penalties for tax evasion, isn't really an income tax.

The IRS Code gives the 16th Amendment it's teeth.

True enough, but in the context of Demo's stated TP argument, this is irrelevant. That is, unless the TP population is claiming that Congress never passed the tax code?

I don't get it. There are so many legit things that can be done to modify the tax system for the better. Don't the TP's realize that they are actually hindering those legit avenues?

[Demosthenes]

Okay, am I missing something here?

Does a ratified constitutional amendment require enabling legislation?

A Constitutional Amendment does require some legislation in order for it to be effective. What good is an Amendment if there's no penalties for violating it? Prohibition, with no penalties for selling alchohol, isn't really prohibition. Income taxes, with no penalties for tax evasion, isn't really an income tax.

The IRS Code gives the 16th Amendment it's teeth.

And the Code was put into law with the Revenue Act of 1913.