Losthorizontals push to put Pete on "Freedom Watch"

[Weston White]

I am however, a believer in the Constitution and in the Republic, for which it stands! I believe that is all we need, nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Including the 16th amendment? Interpreted using the everyday meaning of its terms, not some hidden meaning that you get from running it through a paper shredder?

Of course, even the Annotated CRS Constitution uses the phrase [paraphrased]: income as meant by the XVI Amendment and XVI Amendment income, throughout and never references anything about being a tax upon laboring or money form laboring or anything even remotely close, it is all about business activities and profits derived therefrom.

[Famspear]

Of course, even the Annotated CRS Constitution uses the phrase [paraphrased]: income as meant by the XVI Amendment and XVI Amendment income, throughout and never references anything about being a tax upon laboring or money form [sic] laboring or anything even remotely close, it is all about business activities and profits derived therefrom.

The Amendment itself says nothing about kinds of taxes (taxes on laboring or money or business activity, etc.).

The annotations in the CRS Annotated Constitution are just that -- annotations. You seem to be implying that if something is not mentioned in the CRS annotations for the Sixteenth Amendment, it's not covered by the Amendment.

If that's what you're thinking, here's the news: You're wrong.

Annotations are just that: annotations. They're a form of secondary authority, and they're called "finding tools." They're prepared by editors (in this case, the editors at the Congressional Research Service). The fact that a particular legal point or court case is not mentioned in a list of annotations on the Sixteenth Amendment is not determinative of whether the income of private sector workers is taxable or not, etc., etc.

Weston, in the years to come, as you continue with your supposed "study" of law, you might want to take a course in basic legal research, so that you know how to use the annotations in the CRS Annotated Constitution.

Oh, and by the way: The annotations you reference do specifically cite the Springer decision by the Supreme Court, the case from 1880-1881. Can you guess what the holding in that case was?

[Weston White]

Of course, even the Annotated CRS Constitution uses the phrase [paraphrased]: income as meant by the XVI Amendment and XVI Amendment income, throughout and never references anything about being a tax upon laboring or money form [sic] laboring or anything even remotely close, it is all about business activities and profits derived therefrom.

The Amendment itself says nothing about kinds of taxes (taxes on laboring or money or business activity, etc.).

The annotations in the CRS Annotated Constitution are just that -- annotations. You seem to be implying that if something is not mentioned in the CRS annotations for the Sixteenth Amendment, it's not covered by the Amendment.

If that's what you're thinking, here's the news: You're wrong.

Annotations are just that: annotations. They're a form of secondary authority, and they're called "finding tools." They're prepared by editors (in this case, the editors at the Congressional Research Service). The fact that a particular legal point or court case is not mentioned in a list of annotations on the Sixteenth Amendment is not determinative of whether the income of private sector workers is taxable or not, etc., etc.

Weston, in the years to come, as you continue with your supposed "study" of law, you might want to take a course in basic legal research, so that you know how to use the annotations in the CRS Annotated Constitution.

Oh, and by the way: The annotations you reference do specifically cite the Springer decision by the Supreme Court, the case from 1880-1881. Can you guess what the holding in that case was?

Geez, by a clue there Mr. Desperation...

annotate: to make or furnish critical or explanatory notes or comment

That is what the CRS Annotated Constitution does, that is what purpose for which it serves. Geez you act like it meaningless and insubstantial, just like you treat Congressional Records, yea those are meaningless it is only where they debate all sides of the argument during the creation of a pending Act or Resolution. Yea totally inconsequential. And the Congressional Research Service, what do they know, right? Just a meaningless team of Constitutional attorneys and other nonprofessional types. Your antics are tiring.

Yea, and guess what Springer is only mentioned in a partial sentence in the opening paragraph as being a related issue to the Pollock case, and guess what, Springer was an attorney dealing in matters concerning bonds, both indirect taxable activities... just another coincidence, I know... I know.

You can bet your ass that if the outcome of Springer really meant what you claim it did that case would have been given its own special header in that topic within the CRS Annotated Constitution and it would have been thoroughly written on, instead, however, it is just a silly little opening footnote and nothing more.

[Gregg]

Weston White is a troll. His specious theories and arguments about Federal Income Tax Law have been thoroughly addressed. Following Weston White's advice on tax matters will likely result in a very unpleasant result (see Hendrickson, Peter http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1821).

Please don't feed the troll.

[Bud Dickman]

Weston:

Too much time on my hands, its ticking away with my sanity
Ive got too much time on my hands, its hard to believe such a calamity
Ive got too much time on my hands and its ticking away from me
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands

STYX