|On the 16th Amendment|
The 16th Amendment did not repeal the apportionment rule of the Constitution. It did not change or amend the Constitution in any way. It did not make legal an unapportioned direct tax on wages or other property. Apportionment was bypassed de facto through the clever mirage of de jure repeal. The 16th only states that Congress may collect an indirect tax on incomes, from whatever ["U.S."] source derived. Congress already had that authority (clearly used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909), which explains the lack of an enabling clause.
The missing "enabling clause"
Congress has no power but what the States (through the Constitution) give it. Remember, Congress writing a law is one thing; enforcing it is another. Both the law and its enforcement must be authorized in either: 1.) the original Constitution, or 2.) a Constitutional amendment. If Congress seeks to enlarge its current Constitutional authority, then it must go to the States for approval in the form of a Constitutional amendment. Once this new amendment is ratified by three quarters of the States, it is the law of the land and becomes as much a part of the Constitution as the original document as if the Founding Fathers had written it.
If Congress needs new Constitutional authority to enact a new law, then it obviously needs new Constitutional authority to enforce that new law. The two always go hand-in-hand. So, within an amendment, Congress seeks the States' permission for such enforcement in the form of an "enabling clause" (because it enables Congress to enforce its new authority by "appropriate legislation "). Within that amendment are always two components: A) the new law, and B) the enabling clause to enforce that new law. The Union State legislatures must ratify both.
It is important to notice that the 16th Amendment does not have any words or language to allow Congress to 'enforce this article by appropriate legislation.' This is a powerful phrase incorporated in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, and 19th Amendments to enable Congress to legislate for enforcement purposes. Enforcement provisions were not included in the 16th Amendment because no new powers were granted by this Amendment! Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution had already granted the necessary [indirect] taxing powers to Congress, J .Eugene Wilson: HOW TO FIGHT THE IRS AND WIN II
When any new Congressional authority is to be granted by an amendment, that amendment must include an enabling clause or Congress is powerless to enforce its new law. Not including such an enabling clause would be like giving somebody a new car-without the keys - the point is this: without an enabling clause, the Congress can't enforce its new law, and what good is a law without powers of enforcement? Good-for-nothing! Surely Congress wouldn't go to the trouble of proposing an allegedly direct tax on income and the repeal of apportionment -without including a simple little enabling clause? (NOTE: Interestingly enough, an enabling clause was not neglected in the 18th Amendment-without which Congress could not have enforced Prohibition, the "War On Booze." Nor did Congress forget enabling clauses in the 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments. And as you can see, Congress also knew how to write an enabling clause before the 16th, because it did so in the 13th, 14th, and 15th.
|The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. These materials have been prepared for educational and informational purposes and are intended for "nontaxpayers" who live outside the federal zone and who are not "residents" (aliens) or "citizens" of the "United States". If you are a "taxpayer", a "resident" (alien) of the "United States", a federal "employee" or contractor, or if you live inside the federal zone, then instead please consult http://www.irs.govfor educational materials.|
Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2016
All Rights Reserved
H O M E