16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Premise

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

The Discovery

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated inDefects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

Favorite

4 members favorited this

< Previous Post

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by Central Scrutinizer on January 10, 2013 at 9:06am: haven't supported these criminals since 2000 after they raped me for 700K.

Been saying all along, QUIT FINANCING THESE ILLEGAL FOREIGN BANKSTER CRIMINAL MAFIA DIX

& they will dry up & blow away ;)

Comment by TommyD on December 22, 2011 at 5:47pm: Thank you. I have talk on the issue of Constitutional ratification of the 16th and 17th for a few years now. As shown in Marbury v Madison and other court decisions, any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void from the inception of said law rather than the finding.

Being as these two amendments were never Constitutionally ratified, they have never been valid.

Look at the ramifications...the 16th is bad enough but the 17th is were it really gets messy.

If we have not had a constitutionally seated congress since 1913 then every law, act, statute, bill, declaration etc... passed since that time are, in fact, null and void.

This blew my mind when I first started reading about it...Our nation has been occupied by an illegal jaunta since 1913 and all of our current laws are invalid.

WHOAAAAA DUDE!

Comment by suzie on December 22, 2011 at 3:42pm: I found this link helpful ..http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/c03/amend16.html it seems we really need to understand language. " from whatever source derived " means something completely different in legaleeze.. ignorance of the law is no excuse and governments will never volunteer information that has been so cleaverly hidden .. QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS well we have not questioned anything and have been taken advantage of for a long time.

The American revolutionist got pissed over a few pennies and revolted, "no taxation without representation was the cry!" Article 1 [THAT'S THE FIRST ONE] right after the preamble just a few paragraphs in the very first order of business was taxes! section [3] or for a first time reader chapter [3] : Representatives and DIRECT (emphasis mine)taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to there respective Numbers which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons .. yadda yadda yadda read the rest yourself.

Article 1 section 8 says: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

If i am correct one is a direct tax and the other an indirect tax... The 16th Amendment is in direct contradiction of the first Amendment because is is neither.. saying congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, WITHOUT (emphasis mine) apportionment among the several states and WITHOUT (emphasis mine) regard to any census or enumeration.

i mean why hasn't anyone questioned this? today it would be a big LMAO if people weren't such sheeple. How can any thinking person with half a brain think that our forefathers would ever agree to but something in the constitution that basically said that congress can do what ever the hell it wants to do for as long as it want to until someone says TAXES ENOUGH ALREADY!! for crying out loud we have become rape victims to our own government ..who has purposely dummied us down and guided us in a dependent position of helplessness. Self reliance is a scary thought. We have been rob bed from the first paycheck we ever got. Supreme court decisions have been held up .. saying the 16th Amendment didn't lay any NEW tax. The income tax was for sources derived by corporations not peoples labor.. AND... If the 16th Amendment was ratified they would have had to have had a constitutional amendment to change Article 1 sec [3] and article 1 sec [8] until they change them the 16th amendment should be challenge on so many levels.. With all the energy of OCCUPIED WALL ST i wish there would a movement called FILE EXEMPT if we all did it there corruption would STOP IMMEDIATELY.. and WE THE PEOPLE would have a whole lot more money in our pockets.. SCREW THEM .. live within your means? Congress can Bite me! They know taxing ordinary people's labor is unconstitutional but they will not ever say it! STOP TELLING LIES CONGRESS! They ALL know how screwed they would be if we all realized they were screwing us.. They love occupy wall street because as long as we don't look at them they still have time to fuck us up even more... We need to know our rights, they didn't teach us in school about our rights, they didn't want the black slaves to ever learn how to read either... think about it

Comment by Marklar on October 12, 2011 at 4:25pm: Sorry, but the entire premise here is false. The 16th Amendment actually has nothing to do with whether the government has the right to levy an income tax but instead merely identifies the income tax as an indirect tax not subject to the rules of apportionment.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

So while the income tax may be bullshit it is, unfortunately, both legal and constitutional. Most importantly for this thread though, it simply has nothing to do with the 16th amendment except in regards to the means by which it is levied. So really you are just argueing against the form by which you are being raped by bringing up the 16th, not whether or not you can be raped in the first place.

More info on this:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm