The FairTax

[Julius_Seizeher]

If you guys want to be part of a growing movement to end the corruption, inequity, inefficiency, and unconstitutionality of our current tax system, you should visit FairTax.org and see what we are all about.

The FairTax can, nearly by itself, rebuild the American middle class and bring rampant prosperity back to America.

Upon joining our movement, I encourage you to write letters to your local newspaper editors and elected officials, as a champion of the FairTax.

 

[highconscienceness]

Income tax is unconstitutional. The Fed is as much Federal as FedEx. Get rid of both, that's fair and without tax.

Prior to unconstitutional invention of Federal Reserve, a private corporation, United States had 0% yearly inflation and 10% yearly economic growth.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#

 

[highconscienceness]

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

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'm familiar with United States constitution, which makes me a damn terrorist, since carrying one with you is terrorist paraphernalia according to Department of Homeland Security. However, hear me out, 16th amendment was passed unconstitutionally. You can watch this documentary and note sources cited to find out why.

 

[Rogue]

However, hear me out, 16th amendment was passed unconstitutionally. You can watch this documentary and note sources cited to find out why.

The sixteenth amendment was ratified. Some of the copies of the amendment contained typographical errors of capitalization, punctuation, or wording, but such errors are trivial. In a memorandum from the Department of State, Office of the Solicitor, dated February 1913:

The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, or both, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording.

The ratified copies of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments also contained typographical errors of capitalization, punctuation, and wording, but where are those protesters?

At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, there wore (sic) thirty-seven states in the Union, therefore twenty-eight were necessary to make up the required three-fourths necessary to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. The first thirty states above mentioned were all included in the declaration of the Secretary of State announcing the adoption of the 14th amendment. The three latter states were not included in that declaration. It will be observed that there were many substantial errors of wording in the resolutions of the state legislatures upon which the Secretary of State acted in issuing his declaration announcing the adoption and the ratification by the states of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. As, by announcing the ratification of the 14th amendment the Executive Branch of the Government ruled that these errors were immaterial to the adoption of the amendment, and further as this amendment has been repeatedly before the courts, and has been by them enforced, it is clear that the procedure in ratifying that amendment constitutes on this point a precedent which may be properly followed in proclaiming the adoption of the present amendment, -that is to say, that the Secretary of State may disregard the errors contained in the certified copies of the resolutions of legislatures acting affirmatively on the proposed amendment.

It should, moreover, be observed that it seems clearly to have been the intention of the legislature in each and every case to accept and ratify the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress. Again, the incorporation of the terms of the proposed amendment in the ratifying resolution seems in every case merely to have been by way of recitation. In no case has any legislature signified in any way its deliberate intention to change the wording of the proposed amendment. The errors appear in most cases to have been merely typographical and incident to an attempt to make an accurate quotation.

Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapproval the proposed amendment. It, therefore, seems a necessary presumption, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, that a legislature did not intend to do something that it had not the power to do, but rather that it intended to do something that it had the power to do, namely, where its action has been affirmative, to ratify the amendment proposed by Congress. Moreover, it could not be presumed that by a mere change of wording probably inadvertent, the legislature had intended to reject the amendment as proposed by Congress where all parts of the resolution other than those merely reciting the proposed amendment had set forth an affirmative action by the legislature (emphasis added). For these reasons it is believed that the Secretary of State should in the present instance include in his declaration announcing the adoption of the 16th amendment to the Constitution the States referred to notwithstanding it appears that errors exist in the certified copies of Resolutions passed by the Legislatures of those States ratifying such amendment.

 

[Rogue]

You are quite right.

Little wonder that the income tax was passed right along the same time frame as the Federal Reserve was created. Which by the way, also is a violation of the Constitution since money MUST be backed by metals and cannot be fiat.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This was prohibition of state powers. Please cite constitutional law scholars from highly esteemed universities (in other words, not conspiratorial websites) who explain how this applies to powers of the federal government. Otherwise, what you're saying seems to be bullsh*t.

 

[Bible_Belt]

... the Federal Reserve was created. Which by the way, also is a violation of the Constitution since money MUST be backed by metals and cannot be fiat.

People tend to throw around the word "unconstitutional" very loosely, often using it to mean "a bad policy with which I disagree." Not all bad ideas are prohibited by the Constitution, so to argue with the statement that something is unconstitutional is by no means to argue that it is a good idea. Those are two separate arguments.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


http://mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp
One argument used by Fisher, James M. Buchanan, and others holds that the U.S. Constitution mandates the government's using its powers to stabilize the price level. This argument rests on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof..." The argument, absurd at best, disingenuous at worst, and certainly anachronistic treats the framers of the Constitution as if they were modern price-stabilizationist economists, as if they meant by "the value thereof" the purchasing power of the money unit, or its inverse, the price level. From this dubious assumption, these writers derive the alleged constitutional duty of the federal government to intervene in monetary matters so as to stabilize the level of prices. But what the framers meant by "value" was simply the weight and the fineness of coins. It is, after all, the responsibility of every firm to regulate the nature of its own product, and to the extent that the federal government mints coins, it must see to it that the weight and fineness of these coins are what the government says they are.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

The Federal tax system is indeed unconstitutional by virtue of the way it intrudes into the lives of free Americans and trespasses against the "rights held to be self-evident".

Free Americans were not meant live under an oppressive and intrusive system of taxation where big brother looks over your shoulder to measure your productivity and steal from you accordingly.

Why was America founded in the first place?

The FairTax is the answer.

The chief argument against the FairTax is that it "favors the wealthy". Even if that were true, no system of taxation could possibly favor the wealthy more than our current system. Wealthy businessowners and investors have tax shelters wherein they are able to write-off the money they invest into their business, thus growing their assets and making them richer, tax-free! Meanwhile, the middle class (employee) taxpayer has no tax shelter, and he basically exists to pay taxes. He is the packmule of our society.

The FairTax spreads the burden of taxation across the entire socioeconomic spectrum, and is based on consumption instead of production.

Our current tax system punishes success and incentivizes failure; no wonder everything is so messed up! FAIRTAX NOW!

 

[Rogue]

The Federal tax system is indeed unconstitutional by virtue of the way it intrudes into the lives of free Americans and trespasses against the "rights held to be self-evident".

I don't like taxes as much as the next guy, but your rhetoric is specious. That's all I will say.