What are they smoking at Franklin Pierce Law Center?

[Spencer]

Kevin posted the following article at the Ed & Elaine Brown topic, which I wanted to comment on outside the context of the Browns:

IRS lists and refutes 'all of the anti-tax arguments'

By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News Staff

Convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield aren't the first Americans to claim they shouldn't have to pay income tax, and they likely will not be the last, given the amount of debate the issue has sparked on the Internet.

But legal scholars are quick to point out the U.S. Constitution -- the document many anti-government folks like the Browns hold most sacred -- does in fact allow an income tax. Article 1 enumerates the powers of Congress, including "the power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ..."

As our young nation grew, lawmakers and the courts debated whether any income tax collected had to be divided equally among the states on a per capita basis. Finally, Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1909, and sent it out to the states to be ratified, which required three-quarters of the then-48 states.

Here's the text of the 16th Amendment: "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."

Seems clear? Not so fast, say some folks, among them Brendan Kelly, chairman of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party.

"They never passed it," he insisted. "They just said they did."

Kelly -- and he has plenty of company -- contends "they didn't have enough states to go along with it" to ratify the 16th Amendment.

"This is when it started," he said. "They started the Federal Reserve Bank and all this nonsense that stole freedom from the country."

Not true, says Michael York, the state librarian. He produced the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, 2003 edition, which lays out the history of Amendment XVI. The amendment, it states, "was proposed by the Sixty-first Congress on July 12, 1909, and was declared ratified on February 25, 1913."

It goes on to list the states that ratified the amendment and the dates they did so. The first was Alabama, on Aug. 10, 1909.

The last? New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 -- which happens to be after the date the U.S. Secretary of State declared the amendment ratified. (According to information posted on the U.S. House of Representatives Web site, New Hampshire had previously rejected the same amendment in March, 1911.)

York said he's heard the arguments over the years that there weren't enough states that ratified the 16th amendment, but, by his count, there were more than enough.

"When I counted them up, there were 42. They needed 36," he said.

Ohio is a particularly popular target of Internet theories; the argument goes that Ohio wasn't really a state until 1953, when Congress issued a proclamation making it so -- even though it was accepted into the union 150 years earlier.

By York's count, there were 40 states that had ratified the 16th Amendment by Feb. 25, 1913; Massachusetts and New Hampshire did so on March 4 and March 7 of that year, respectively.

So even if you wanted to discount Ohio, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, 39 states had ratified the amendment prior to Feb. 25, 1913.

As a historian, York said, it's clear to him that the issue has been settled. "This has been adjudicated at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and they're the ones that in fact decide whether the laws are constitutional, and they've decided that in fact the 16th Amendment is constitutional."

Stephen Black is a professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, and an expert in tax law. For years, he, too, has heard the arguments that there's no legal basis for federal income taxes.

He noted the IRS lists and refutes "all of the anti-tax arguments that have been collected over the years" on its Web site. (Search for "frivolous tax arguments" on irs.gov.)

Black said one recurring argument is that states voted on slightly different versions of the 16th Amendment.

"They didn't have Xerox machines. They had to copy things by hand," he said, and that apparently led to minor differences in the wording.

But in the decades since, Congress has written and re-written the federal tax code, the first codified in 1939 and the most recent version in 1986. And the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of income tax laws, Black said.

"The fact is, we live together as a country," Black said. "There are costs that we the people have agreed to via our representatives, and we have to pay those somehow."

Nobody really wants to pay taxes, he said. "But if we're going to have an army to protect us, if we're going to have freeways to go in between states, if we're going to have Homeland Security, if we're going to have the Food and Drug Administration, which makes sure the milk I drink is pasteurized, then each of us has to come up with our fair share, whatever that fair share has to be."

Kelly is not convinced. He said he doesn't file a federal tax return, although he does have federal taxes withheld from his paycheck by his employer. He claims there are "millions of people in this country that do what I do."

He does not believe the Browns went too far by not paying their federal taxes, "because the government has no right to collect it in the first place."

Kelly said his own approach is to work toward electing more libertarians to reduce the role and power of the federal government.

But, Black noted, the founding fathers created the representative form of government that enacted the tax system that exists today.

"If we don't like that, we have channels to change it. But we the people need to do that," he said.

"And at the point where one person says, 'I'm not going to pay,' we the people have said, 'If you don't, that's a crime.' And there's a punishment attached to it."

This Stephen Black character appears to lack any common sense (a deficiency common among lawyers).  He needs the FDA to "make[] sure the milk [he] drink(s) is pasteurized"? 

Who makes sure that the hamburger he barbeques is cooked? 

Who makes sure that his behind is wiped before he leaves the bathroom?

A pair of eyes (or -- for the visually-impaired -- Braille-trained fingers) could read the label on a bottle of milk to see whether it is pasteurized or not and then buy the one that is (or -- in a free-market economy -- the one that isn't) if that is what one wants. 

Why-oh-why would a guy who presumably can read (he apparently went to law school and passed a written bar exam) need the help of tens-of-thousands of Washington, D.C. bureacrats in order to know what a milk bottle says?  The Center for Missing and Exploited Children must really be wasting its time putting the faces of missing kids on the sides of milk containers if none of us can read them.

This guy scares me; I can't believe that he gets to vote.

He also doesn't know his history of the United States if he thinks only at the national level ("we live together as a country"); Washington considered himself a Virginian first, and most people and the Founding Fathers thought of themselves as residents / citizens of their home States, with those States united for a common defense and free trade among the States (with little -- if any -- other federal involvement in other areas).

[Fluff and Stuff]

Without at least the semblance of regulation, there would be virtually no way to insure the quality of any given food product outside of making it yourself.   

There is no way to insure the quality of any given food outside of making it yourself.  Well, even then you cannot be sure.

Have you ever had a garden?  Someone could mess with it.

Have you ever bought anything at a farmer's market or roadside stand?  It may kill you but I have never been sick.

I work in a bakery and the government has very minimal regulation of us and we could make it that we kill all of our customers if we wanted to do that.  Of course, we don't want to hurt them and so we do not, it has nothing to do with the government.

Everyone in the food industry knows that company's own inspectors are much tougher (and come more often) than government inspectors.

[Spencer]

A pair of eyes (or -- for the visually-impaired -- Braille-trained fingers) could read the label on a bottle of milk to see whether it is pasteurized or not and then buy the one that is (or -- in a free-market economy -- the one that isn't) if that is what one wants. 

A line of printing on a label isn't what makes the milk Pasteurized or not, its what is done to the milk during processing.  I'm not a lover of big government, but I don't have a non-governmental solution to the problem of adulterated food.  Without at least the semblance of regulation, there would be virtually no way to insure the quality of any given food product outside of making it yourself.   

The private market can solve this "problem."  Via lawsuits and private regulatory bodies (who themselves would put their reputations and finances on the line) we can achieve far greater consumer safety.

[KBCraig]

I'm not a lover of big government, but I don't have a non-governmental solution to the problem of adulterated food.  Without at least the semblance of regulation, there would be virtually no way to insure the quality of any given food product outside of making it yourself.   

The private market can solve this "problem."  Via lawsuits and private regulatory bodies (who themselves would put their reputations and finances on the line) we can achieve far greater consumer safety.

Underwriters' Laboratories seems to be doing just fine as a private, independent, non-profit product safety standards organization. They require independent testing, unlike the government-dictated "CE Mark" in Europe (manufacturers may "self-certify" CE products).

[error]

You beat me to mentioning UL. It works so well that people barely even think about it.

[Bald Eagle]

Jeez,

They really screwed up by making the 16th Amendment the argument.  The real issue is that even if it was properly ratified, SCOTUS has ruled that it gave Congress NO NEW POWERS OD TAXATION.  They attempted to pass an income tax once before the 16th, and it was unconstitutional then, so the one we have now is as well.  THAT's the point.  They can't argue "theories," when there are SCOTUS rulings that are FACT.

Furthermore, even if the 16th WAS legitimately ratified, AND it gave Congress the power to levy an income tax, Congress STILL needs to pass a law ENACTING an income tax, which is what people mean by "show me the law."  The 16th isn't the law, it only enables such a law to be passed.  The IRS tax code is simply a collection of rules for figuring out how much someone's tax adds up to, it doesn't actually levy the tax.  It's similar to a restaurant menu showing what your bill would work out to IF YOU ORDERED FROM THE MENU, but you don't owe the restaurant any money until you order - regardless of whether you're standing inside the doors of the establishment or not.


Black voices his socialist and authoritarian opinion about why we should all be bound and chained by the will of the tribe, but he never cites the damn law that he claims actually levies the income tax.

If you're going to talk to the press, get your facts and arguments straight.
I also think that Ed and some of the people who were present at the press conference on Monday really damaged the income tax argument by drifting off into the Mason/Illuminati/Zionist, etc. stuff.  Stick to the simple message and try to state facts rather than voice opinions or theories.

[Braddogg]

More and more people in the alternative health community are coming around to the idea that pasteurized milk is actually harmful compared to raw milk:

http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html

You just linked to a medical article from 1938.  Any more recent medical articles you've read and would like to share?

[LordBaltimore]

Furthermore, even if the 16th WAS legitimately ratified, AND it gave Congress the power to levy an income tax, Congress STILL needs to pass a law ENACTING an income tax, which is what people mean by "show me the law." 

They did.  It was called the Revenue Act of 1913 and it was later replaced by the Revenue Act of 1954. 

[Pat McCotter]

Have a private firm that does what the FDA was originally set up as - an advisory testing body. Test the foods and publish the information to consumers. Let the consumers decide to buy the food or not.

[Lloyd Danforth]

If each stockholder were personally responsible for potential liability, they and the insurance companies will keep companies presently harassed by FDA, cautious about the safety of their products.

[LordBaltimore]

If each stockholder were personally responsible for potential liability, they and the insurance companies will keep companies presently harassed by FDA, cautious about the safety of their products.

You want to increase the size of the courts in order to decrease the size of the FDA?

[mvpel]

They really screwed up by making the 16th Amendment the argument.  The real issue is that even if it was properly ratified, SCOTUS has ruled that it gave Congress NO NEW POWERS OD TAXATION.

Right - they already and always had the power to tax incomes, as a geographically uniform indirect excise tax on the income-producing activity calculated by the amount of income it produces, as opposed to a capitation or ad valorum tax.

The Pollock case turned on taxes on income from property, not labor, which the Court ruled are a form of ad valorum direct tax burdening the ownership of property.

[Braddogg]

More and more people in the alternative health community are coming around to the idea that pasteurized milk is actually harmful compared to raw milk:

http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html

You just linked to a medical article from 1938.  Any more recent medical articles you've read and would like to share?

More recent articles about raw milk abound on www.mercola.com. I don't read about it very much because I've drunk raw milk for decades with no ill effects and common sense tells me that raw milk is superior to pasteurized milk.

But I would never dismiss any medical information simply because it was published in the 1930's (or before). Royal Rife discovered the cure for most, if not all, infectious diseases way back then before the AMA shut him down. Also, that was a time when corporatism was much less entrenched and Americans were much less dumbed down, fat and sick. And of course the cost of "health care" was not threatening to bankrupt the country!

Abstract of a 1984 article appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association: "Meaningful differences in nutritional value between pasteurized and unpasteurized milk have not been demonstrated, and other purported benefits of raw milk consumption have not been substantiated. Conversely, the role of unpasteurized dairy products in the transmission of infectious diseases has been established repeatedly. To effectively counsel patients attracted by the health claims made for raw milk, practicing physicians must understand both the rationale used by proponents of raw milk and the magnitude of the risk involved in drinking raw milk."

I looked at a few of Mercola's articles, and the only references to scientific journals I could find were from the 1920s and 1930s.

From quackwatch.org: "Royal Raymond Rife (1888-1971), an American who claimed that cancer was caused by bacteria. During the 1920s, he claimed to have developed a powerful microscope that could detect living microbes by the color of auras emitted by their vibratory rates. His Rife Frequency Generator allegedly generates radio waves with precisely the same frequency, causing the offending bacteria to shatter in the same manner as a crystal glass breaks in response to the voice of an opera singer. The American Cancer Society has pointed out that although sound waves can produce vibrations that break glass, radio waves at the power level emitted a Rife generator do not have sufficient energy to destroy bacteria [5].

The bottom line is that radionics devices have no value for diagnosing or treating anything."

Of course, the retort is, "Qui bono?" Who benefits?  The American Cancer Society would be out of business if cancer was cured, and the medical-industrial complex would be out of business if the Rife machines worked.  This is bunk, because the same critique can be asked of those selling the Rife machines and producing raw milk.  Personally, I'll stick with the peer-reviewed journals that involve double-blind controlled studies.

[Braddogg]

Personally, I'll stick with the peer-reviewed journals that involve double-blind controlled studies.

You will have a tough time getting through life because many of the things you will need to make decisions about have not been studied in this manner. 

But, anyway, do you read the Journal Of Allergy, Asthma And Immunology? It recently published an interesting study of 4700 British school children showing significant reductions in asthma, hayfever and eczema among the raw milk drinkers. In addition, the raw milk drinkers had 60 per cent lower levels of immunoglobulin E. The denatured proteins in pasteurized milk are very hard on the immune system.

Strawman: Of course not EVERYTHING has been peer-reviewed double-blind placebo-controlled randomized studied.  But science has, and as far as science goes, I'm going to trust the scientific method.

I sat down to read an article last night about that study, but got distracted by another article that appeared on one of the sidebars: Hotpants on parade as Wimbledon players sell tradition short.

I have access to the libraries at a local university, so I may see if I can find the text of the journal article (I found a June 2006 article entitled "Which aspects of the farming lifestyle explain the inverse association with childhood allergy?" and is in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, rather than the JAAI.  If you can tell me the name of the JAAI article you read, I'll check that out too).  It seems like this may just be a trade off between risk of allergies and risk of disease.

[mvpel]

Jordan was raised in an orphanage for the first couple of years of his life, and he has zero allergies.  It may be that the modern super-sanitized lifestyle in America micromanaged by overweening parents is depriving infants and toddlers the opportunity to exercise their immune systems and develop normal immunological reactions to common allergens.