Each of the 50 states has two slates of electors. When the state winner is announced, the electors of the winning party vote on December 19 this year. - - - Updated - - - No problem. Since it is your home, what should I tell you?
Was the law passed legitimately and consistently with other laws and constuttional provisions? Was I given notice of the taking? What was the reason for the taking? Was I offered just compensation?
I am being asked to be the back up authority for Joe Banister. What amuses me is I never claimed I am his authority.
Good points. Do you believe this holds true for the 16th amendment? That the constitution be followed to the letter of the law? As to your home, at least you established that there are events where the government is wrong.
You are vouching for his credibility. I understand he claims there are no tax laws. I just showed them to you. Why do you find him credible given this blatant misrepresentation I just proved to you? Doesn't that make you question what he's telling you? - - - Updated - - - Sure, I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the law that is superior to all other laws. How did "we" establish that? I never said the government is wrong. It certainly can be.
Don't fret. We will discuss this further and if you pay attention, i expect you to get it. Many others will. OK gang of posters, who thinks some very large states should overrule the rest of the states?
OK, Iriemon wants the laws followed. Iriemon, do you recall that when the 16th amendment is alleged to have passed, being basic to what you posted ...in other words if the 16th is not valid, laws based on the 16th are also not valid .... Alleged to have passed, how many states flat rejected the law?
According to the United States Government Publishing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[32] Alabama (August 10, 1909) Kentucky (February 8, 1910) South Carolina (February 19, 1910) Illinois (March 1, 1910) Mississippi (March 7, 1910) Oklahoma (March 10, 1910) Maryland (April 8, 1910) Georgia (August 3, 1910) Texas (August 16, 1910) Ohio (January 19, 1911) Idaho (January 20, 1911) Oregon (January 23, 1911) Washington (January 26, 1911) Montana (January 27, 1911) Indiana (January 30, 1911) California (January 31, 1911) Nevada (January 31, 1911) South Dakota (February 1, 1911) Nebraska (February 9, 1911) North Carolina (February 11, 1911) Colorado (February 15, 1911) North Dakota (February 17, 1911) Michigan (February 23, 1911) Iowa (February 24, 1911) Kansas (March 2, 1911) Missouri (March 16, 1911) Maine (March 31, 1911) Tennessee (April 7, 1911) Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment Wisconsin (May 16, 1911) New York (July 12, 1911) Arizona (April 3, 1912) Minnesota (June 11, 1912) Louisiana (June 28, 1912) West Virginia (January 31, 1913) Delaware (February 3, 1913) Ratification (by the requisite 36 states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two[33] of the forty-eight then existing: New Mexico (February 3, 1913) Wyoming (February 3, 1913) New Jersey (February 4, 1913) Vermont (February 19, 1913) Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911 The legislatures of the following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it: Connecticut Rhode Island Utah Virginia[34] The legislatures of the following states never considered the proposed amendment: Florida Pennsylvania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution It looks like 6 states did not ratify it.
They justification this forcible taking of property by saying that there are some things it only the government is capable of doing. I've been told that taxes are necessary to fund courts, police departments, and national defense, that only the government is capable of providing these services. If this were true, then then the only federal taxes needed would be those to fund national defense (a federal matter), and the only state taxes needed would be to fund courts and police departments (a state/county/municipal matter).
Robert, I'm not going to lie to you. I haven't watched Joe. I had to work today, and I just got home. But I looked up the history of the 16th, and the history is that 42 of the 48 states that existed at the time ratified the Amendment.
So I looked up the 861 position and read about it. What I see is that numerous cases have used that as a defense, and they have failed.
I have no intention of smearing you. We're just talking. And I can assure you, I do follow the law. (OK, I speed on the highway sometimes, geez.)
I have been reading up on the Benson case and he defended himself using the 16th amendment law. And the court stated it makes no ruling on the valid nature of the amendment and calls that the duty of the Congress. Joe so far as I can learn still stands by his research. He states not enough states validated the amendment. States some seem to not like the actual amendment wording.
My son in law, the retired cop once was going 80 mph trying to catch me. He and my daughter had been in Oregon on a vacation. I left Dads place and got onto highway 101. I tended to zoom along when safe to do so and one way or the other, they saw me and took off to catch me. My car has a natural highway speed of around 120 mph. I was not driving that fast at all though.
There is something weird with the justice system. They have locked up innocent men using the excuse the lawyer had time to do this or a case could not be used or things even stranger. DNA has cleared men who but for DNA could have been executed. We have to recall this system is very flawed.
227 establishment party lackeys voted for Hillary Clinton. Look, except for 6 faithless electors, they did what they were supposed to do.
It started that my opposition was much larger than I had support. We on my side are almost tied with the detractors. When one is tested on the following premise Since your participation in government, even in the best of circumstances is scant, moments of years by legislators, do you still believe you are government? We have posters who reject they are government, that government is government. That when government says so, so it is. They will fight people like me who try to keep the people as government rather than a few agents they voted for in distant states. - - - Updated - - - Again the media blew it. Supposedly this was the day to take Trump down. While he lost 2 electors, Hillary lost 4. I would say she got taken down.
Try this video. First, Joe clearly believes in law. I do as well. Law is very important to me. Some whom do not get it, ponder this When you read the name Benedict Arnold, do you see a hero or traitor? Then George Washington, a hero or traitor. To the public of that era, Washington the traitor, Arnold loyal to the government. If you can't get the point, I probably can't explain it to you at all. I see Joe Banister in this light. I see him as a hero to this country. I know, some of you see this ex IRS enforcer as the opposite. [video=youtube;QoXOP6f0Rnc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoXOP6f0Rnc[/video]
Robert, for what it's worth, I don't especially like income taxes in principle. If it were up to me I would exclude everyone making less than $100k a year from any income tax whatsoever. Income taxes would begin on income above $100k. I like sales taxes that exclude unprepared food and medicine and the necessities of life like utilities and rents. I like them because the taxpayer chooses when to pay a sales tax according to when they can afford it. And the more money a person makes, the more they spend on those taxable items, which means that the richer one is, the more they contribute. I also like them because the government doesn't have to get into your private affairs when they levy a sales tax. I also don't really mind paying my property taxes because I can see with my own eyes what those taxes are buying - schools, police, fire protection, courts, jails, prisons, road maintenance, and a host of other things. Ideally, however, I think I might levy a statewide sales tax that was 100% used to offset the property tax. The property tax would remain, so as to guarantee a certain stable level of funding for our local services. But the property tax payer would receive a rebate from the sales tax revenue according to how much revenue the sales tax generated, up to but not greater than the amount of property tax that was paid. But, (and I'm just being honest with you) I don't subscribe to these income tax protest arguments. The 16th is what it is. Even if you don't think it was enacted properly, (and as far as I can tell, it was enacted properly) it is in the Constitution. It is the law of the land, and so laws may be enacted to implement and enforce it. My reading on the history of the 861 argument leads me to the belief that most who have taken it to court have lost. I am unconvinced that this is due to some corrupt predisposition by the courts who heard these cases, and multiple different judges and courts have heard these cases over time. My own personal experience with courts and judges is that they bend over backwards to give respect and consideration to defendants and to petitioners. That doesn't mean they will agree with them, but it means that their decisions were impartial. Cheers, Robert.
As usual. very good rebuttal by you. I never mind a quality rebuttal. First, you reject otherwise legal tax systems. You would enormously change tax law. I read that and think to myself, two peas in the same pod. You appear to approve the Federal income tax. I say appear since you report what took place. I am still amazed how Joe Banister holds his view. The man made $90,000 a year enforcing the law. When he made that income, it was much better than today. He flat gave it up. He was forced to defend himself in court and won. Joe himself would show up in court to testify against citizens. For him to flip flop, doesn't that amaze you?
I wouldn't feel too sorry for him, Robert. Look at this from Wiki ... He had to have earned a lot of money from his lectures and books to owe that much money. My wife and I make a good living, but in the same amount of time (4 years) we only owe about $70k in taxes. He owed $110k more than that. That means he made a ton of money, a lot more than that $90k he was making as an IRS agent. The speaking and book writing business has done well for him. Something to think about, isn't it?
Joe was smart though. He knew the estimated taxes due and banked the money in the event he lost to the IRS.
Don't be naïve. The "infrastructure" argument is trivial and misses the point. Did you like paying for the Iraq war? Think of all the truly controversial items that many people deeply object to but are forced to pay for under threat of prison - paying for govt funded abortions, transgender bathrooms, firearm permits and background checks, services for illegals. Do you think the people who could not afford to pay their property tax and were forced to leave their homes had a choice? Taxes as implemented in the USA is theft. That's why there was no provision for any personal taxation in the Constitution.
