16th Amendment and its Ratification:

[vis-à-vis]

I am studying the 16th amendment and the federal income tax. Some argue that the 16th amendment was never ratified because a great many states ratified different versions of the amendment and thus not the actual amendment in the Constitution. Some states misspelled words, dropped or added commas, etc.

I can understand the importance of uniformity when ratifying something of this magnitude. However are typographical errors of this nature significant enough to derail its validity despite the fact that the states clearly intended to ratify the amendment as is in the Constitution?

Any good discussions you can point me to?

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.

 

[helpless]

As much as I love the idea of no income tax and I am one of those people who question everything, I keep coming back to those who say that the 2nd doesnt give the individual the RKBA because of a comma. so...

 

[another okie]

Even if the 16th was repealed tomorrow the Supreme Court would uphold an income tax. The reason the 16th was needed is that the court back then took the literal words of the Constitution ("apportioned") seriously.

And there was an income tax during the Civil War, well before the 16th.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

And there was an income tax during the Civil War, well before the 16th.

Feh, there was also suspension of habeus corpus without Congressional order. The Constitution was basicly flatlined during that war, and never did fully recover.

The bottom line, so far as I'm concerned, is that you'll never get the judiciary to issue a ruling that would cause their paychecks to bounce, no matter how much proof you could bring to bear. So it's a dead issue, not really worth inquiring into.

 

[vis-à-vis]

Brett, what does your sig mean?

 

[HKUSP45C]

Thus always to tyrants = Sic Semper Tyrannis

I agree with the premise of the OP. Though, I've always thought intent was vastly more important than practical outcome. The states did, in fact, intend to levy taxes against the incomes of the "people." It was a foolish and debateably destructive thing and way to do it. That doesn't change their intent.

I also know the intents of most of the framers when they wrote the 2A, regardless of what has turned out to be the practical outcome .... It would be awfully disingenuous of me to play both ends of the field.

Arguing about grammar and punctuation in something as far reaching and impactful as an income tax ammendment and it's ratification is a bit akin to discussing the color of the tree that fell on your house.

 

[Gifted]

This is off topic, but before then I'll throw in two cents.

Income taxes were held constitutional before the 16th. The way they wanted to structure the system though, wasn't. So they passed the 16th to fix that little problem. Now any tax they want is constitutional, no questions asked, no worrying about what apportioned or direct means or whatever.

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

From what I know about the anti-IRS guys, most of their arguments center around the various states passing nonidentical versions of the ammendment. Note that the meat of the ammendment didn't vary so much as the spelling of a word or the punctuation used. I don't really find these arguments compelling.

 

[thexrayboy]

The bottom line, so far as I'm concerned, is that you'll never get the judiciary to issue a ruling that would cause their paychecks to bounce, no matter how much proof you could bring to bear. So it's a dead issue, not really worth inquiring into.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding. Give that man the prize for nailing the substance of the issue dead to the wall. Hair splitting and theorizing about theoretical meanings of amendments and laws pertaining to tax revenue may be fun and
even a necessary part of scholarly debate but in the real world they are meaningless. The goverment wants it's pound of flesh from the people and no argument, no law, no interpretation of intent will deter them. The judiciary is often just another hired thug for Big Brother, they proved that with Kelo vs New London.

 

[Chui]

You nailed it Brent. While I would not have liked to see the nation divided (as the Crowned Heads of Europe did and supported both sides) the nation had to be held together as Lincoln admitted.

Unfortunately, the Constitution was shredded (as Lincoln also admitted).