Ron Paul to Eliminate Income Tax

[notorial dissent]

That's not exactly correct. The Constitution was not ratified by the state governments, but by conventions within each state of delegates who were specially elected by the people of each state for those conventions. That was the procedure agreed upon by the Convention of 1787.

True, I overly simplified, but it would never have gone to delegate assemblies if the States themselves hadn't approved, and I wouldn't have bet on the delegates being randomly chosen either, so it was more or less a foregone conclusion.

The point I was trying to make for the witless wonder was that "the people" did not rise up spontaneously and generate "the organic constitution"-whatever that is supposed to be, it simply didn't happen that way. It was instigated by the Continental Congress by a committee appointed from within that body, approved by that body, then presented to the States, approved by them and presented to their citizens after a fashion, and then approved at that level to become ratified. They did want as much popular support as they could manage, and this was a good way to do it considering the times. Hardly true democracy, but a whole lot closer to it than any place else at the time.

[LPC]

The point I was trying to make for the witless wonder was that "the people" did not rise up spontaneously and generate "the organic onstitution"-whatever that is supposed to be, it simply didn't happen that way. It was instigated by the Continental Congress by a committee appointed from within that body, approved by that body, then presented to the States, approved by them and presented to their citizens after a fashion, and then approved at that level to become ratified.

That is more or less my understanding also.

I get a little frustrated by people who want to think that the American people rose up against British rule. What actually happened is that the state governments that *already* *existed* decided to resist a re-imposition of British rule. It was less a "revolution" that a repulsion of an invasion.

The "American Revolution" succeeded because the "powers that be" wanted to remain as "the powers that be," and "the powers that be" were American and not British.

[LPC]

You are arguing with people who are far, far, far better educated on the topic that you will ever hope to be; your understanding is at the level of a "ABC After School Special" and maybe not even that. In other words, you are totally talking out of your ass.

The problem with what Rachel says is not that it is wrong, but that it is incoherent.

What she writes represents a complete misunderstanding of legal and political language, and she seems to have assigned meanings to words that have nothing to do with the meanings assigned to those words by 99% of the English-speaking world. The result is a "word salad" that is full of sound and fury but signifies nothing.

[RobbZer0]

It is funny how the "FRNs are worthless" crowd cannot answer two simple questions:

(1) Why do other governments accumulate them?

(2) Why do foreign companies accept them in exchange for valuable goods?

I think I may have inadvertently gotten into the "FRNs are worthless" group. I agree that FRNs do have value because they are trade for goods and services. My argument is aimed towards printing these FRNs with interest and that it was a bad idea to give exclusive rights to private bankers to do so.

[LPC]

My argument is aimed towards printing these FRNs with interest and that it was a bad idea to give exclusive rights to private bankers to do so.

1. There is no "interest" incurred in printing Federal Reserve Notes; and

2. Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the United States Mint, not any private bankers.

[RobbZer0]

To add to my previous post I'd like to point out that the progressive loss of liberties through the arrival on the scene of things like The Patriot Act and the escalating need to "secure" the United States in various paranoid ways that are done through sacrificing our liberties that surely it's time for a change.

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and provide new Guards for their future security."

- The Declaration of Independence

[The Operative]

My argument is aimed towards printing these FRNs with interest

Where did you get that idea? Let me guess, a video or website that knows nothing about how the Federal Reserve operates. While it is true that the Federal Reserve must have certain assets to equal the amount of Federal Reserve notes in circulation, the U.S. Government does not borrow those notes from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys and sells U.S. Government securities on the open market and not from the U.S. Government directly.

While the Federal Reserve does receive interest on the approximately $800 billion in U.S. Government debt that it holds, it returns excess earnings to the U.S. Treasury. This can clearly be seen on the independently audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs ... audits.pdf
Page 21 shows the independent audit report and page 23 shows the interest received from the U.S. Government and farther down the page it shows the payment to the U.S. Treasury.

BTW, the Federal Reserve is setup to have some independence of the U.S. Government, but it is not private. The district banks are considered private in certain instances, for example, the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, they have been properly held to be federal instrumentalities in other instances.

While the Federal Reserve isn't perfect and there can be quite a debate on monetary policy, it isn't the evil, private bank empire conspiracy theories make it out to be.

[RobbZer0]

1. There is no "interest" incurred in printing Federal Reserve Notes; and

2. Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the United States Mint, not any private bankers.

Okay. I may have been wrong about what I said. I don't fully understand the process of printing FRNs. So I agree with you. But I'd like to have you show me some proof of how this is so. Believe me, don't think I'm putting a smug, kind of "I-don't-think-so" tone in this sentence. I'd really like to see how it actually works.

"Miscommunication is the root of all evil."
- Unknown Author

[LPC]

To add to my previous post I'd like to point out that the progressive loss of liberties through the arrival on the scene of things like The Patriot Act and the escalating need to "secure" the United States in various paranoid ways that are done through sacrificing our liberties that surely it's time for a change.

What the hell does the Federal Reserve Act have to do with the USA Patriot Act?

(Other than the paranoia and anti-government attitude, of course.)

For the record, I very much oppose the USA Patriot Act, but I'm not so stupid/paranoid as to confuse the USA Patriot Act with monetary policy.

[RobbZer0]

The Patriot Act doesn't have much to do with the Federal Reserve Act. I just went off topic a bit.

The reason I brought it up is because we think we have to pay an Income Tax and that it's not the case. The 16th amendment was not properly ratified in 1913 and so that version that states that "...the Government shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without enumeration..." is not valid and that whatever the original 16th amendment said, which I'd really like to know, still stands and that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional and thus shouldn't be around.

The government can't tax me on my wages/labor. But it does, of course

[Joey Smith]

The 16th amendment was not properly ratified in 1913

Not according to anybody who matters. That expressly excludes convicted felon Bill Benson whose alleged research has been reviewed time after time by the courts and found to be totally bogus.

The income tax is 100% constitutional. No accredited legal or constitutional scholar believes otherwise, nor of course does any judge at any level have any doubts.

[LPC]

The Patriot Act doesn't have much to do with the Federal Reserve Act. I just went off topic a bit.

The reason I brought it up is because we think we have to pay an Income Tax and that it's not the case. The 16th amendment was not properly ratified in 1913 and so that version that states that "...the Government shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without enumeration..." is not valid and that whatever the original 16th amendment said, which I'd really like to know, still stands and that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional and thus shouldn't be around.

The government can't tax me on my wages/labor. But it does, of course :roll:

Sic 'em. (I'm tired and going to be now.)

[The Operative]

Okay. I may have been wrong about what I said. I don't fully understand the process of printing FRNs. So I agree with you. But I'd like to have you show me some proof of how this is so. Believe me, don't think I'm putting a smug, kind of "I-don't-think-so" tone in this sentence. I'd really like to see how it actually works.

"Miscommunication is the root of all evil."
- Unknown Author

This is going to be a brief explanation.

First, bills are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) (part of the U.S. Treasury). Coins are minted by the U.S. Mint. The Federal Reserve tells BEP how many bills and in what denominations are needed. The important part is that new bills either replace worn-out bills or are an increase to the amount of printed bills in circulation. Most new bills replace worn-out bills.

The Federal Reserve cannot simply tell the BEP to print $100 billion in new bills without having an equal amount of certain types of assets on-hand. This is specified by law, Title 12 U.S.C. § 411 and § 412.

You may ask, "How does the Federal Reserve get these assets?" The answer to that question lies in one method the Federal Reserve uses to create and destroy money. The Federal Reserve uses open market operations in order to make direct adjustments to the money supply and to implement monetary policy in regards to the federal funds rate. If the Federal Reserve decides to increase the money supply, the Domestic Trading Desk of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will contact several securities dealers. These "primary dealers" will compete on the basis of price. The Domestic Trading Desk will accept the quotes that meet its goals. To increase the money supply, the Federal Reserve will buy U.S. Government securities. When the orders are filled, the Federal Reserve will credit the accounts of the dealers banks at the Federal Reserve. The money to credit those accounts with is basically created out of thin air. Money is destroyed in much the same way. Instead of buying securities, the Domestic Trading Desk will sell securities on the open market. Once the order is completed, the Federal Reserve decreases the account of the dealers banks. This money disappears into thin air. BTW, trades of this nature are performed several times a week. The Fed can inject money one day and then take it back out of the market the next day or even just a few hours later.

These bills are transferred to the member banks of the Federal Reserve system in much the same way. The member banks must either turn in worn-out bills or draw down their accounts at the Federal Reserve district bank.

Does that make it clear? It can be a confusing subject.

Edited to correct my typo from Title 18 to Title 12.

[The Operative]

The reason I brought it up is because we think we have to pay an Income Tax and that it's not the case.

Exactly where did you get that idea?

The 16th amendment was not properly ratified in 1913 and so that version that states that "...the Government shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without enumeration..." is not valid and that whatever the original 16th amendment said, which I'd really like to know, still stands and that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional and thus shouldn't be around.

The government can't tax me on my wages/labor. But it does, of course

The 16th amendment was properly ratified. However, even if it wasn't, it is now a part of the Constitution and it will take another Constitutional amendment to repeal it. An excellent explanation can be found at LPC's Tax Protester FAQ at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification

BTW, the 16th amendment states, "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." I don't know where you get this idea about "original" 16th amendment.

The government can tax you on your wages/labor and the income tax laws are constitutional.

[notorial dissent]

Dan, I agree with you whole heartedly regarding the constitution and ratification.

I have seen so many bad interpretations of what the Revolution was and meant, and for so very many silly reasons that I get extremely frustrated, and probably more than a little impatient with the ones coming up with them, but then I also usually find that they particular mythology they are clinging to is important to whatever stand they are currently taking and aren’t interested in what actually happened. The witless wonders in particular.

What I find equally amazing is the dichotomy that they will then take up as to what they think it all means and then turn around and deny that same information when it contradicts something else they are holding as true. i.e. that the constitution is the base of all law in whatever form they think it exists and yet does not have the authority to intrude on their lives.

[Doktor Avalanche]

The result is a "word salad" that is full of sound and fury but signifies nothing.

One DMVP was enough, thank you very much.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Hot damn Dueling dipshits.

Life doesn't get any better.

[rachel]

The point I was trying to make for the witless wonder was that "the people" did not rise up spontaneously and generate "the organic onstitution"-whatever that is supposed to be, it simply didn't happen that way. It was instigated by the Continental Congress by a committee appointed from within that body, approved by that body, then presented to the States, approved by them and presented to their citizens after a fashion, and then approved at that level to become ratified.

That is more or less my understanding also.

I get a little frustrated by people who want to think that the American people rose up against British rule. What actually happened is that the state governments that *already* *existed* decided to resist a re-imposition of British rule. It was less a "revolution" that a repulsion of an invasion.

The "American Revolution" succeeded because the "powers that be" wanted to remain as "the powers that be," and "the powers that be" were American and not British.

I know how the Constitution came about morons.
My points are two part. First you seem to want to beleive that Congress is sovern because they wrote up the Constitution. That is simply not true because if it were then Congress wouldnt need the Citizens of the Several States ratitification for approval like they require even today.
Secondly if the Common law has nothing to do with anything as you espouse then what law form was used by Congress from 1776 through the late 1880's?
Was it the civil law form or common?
If it was civil then why the need for civil law statutes and codes that define what a "U.S. citizen" is when the constitution was enough?

[.]

I'm not sure, but I think Rachel is on some seriously mind-altering drugs.

And has been for a long, long time.

[Joey Smith]

First you seem to want to beleive that Congress is sovern because they wrote up the Constitution.

The Constitution was drafted at a constitutional convention. Congress is created by the Constitution, not the other way around.

Secondly if the Common law has nothing to do with anything as you espouse then what law form was used by Congress from 1776 through the late 1880's? Was it the civil law form or common?

After passage of the Constitution until the present, the same form of law as today, i.e., the hierarchy is: (1) Constitution, (2) Statutory Law, and (3) Common Law.

You are so ignorant of American law that I am embarrassed for you.