Centennial of the Sixteenth Amendment

[Agit8r]

2013 marks the hundredth anniversary of it's full ratification, though Alabama ratified it in 1909, and in 1910 Kentucky, South Carolina, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland, Georgia and Texas followed suit.

I wonder if it could be ratified if introduced today

 

[MisterBeale]

2013 marks the hundredth anniversary of it's full ratification, though Alabama ratified it in 1909, and in 1910 Kentucky, South Carolina, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Maryland, Georgia and Texas followed suit.

I wonder if it could be ratified if introduced today

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

. . . and . . .

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

Indeed, the amendment was never legally passed. It was a fraud, from beginning to end. The man responsible had a federal building named after him, ever hear of Fort Knox? Big central government types loved the fellow, he was as corrupt as. . . as . . . well as the current batch of federal politicians.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal government authority they did not have.

You're answer is no, the several states would reserve the power of income tax to themselves only, and bring political power back to the people and their families where it belongs; stripping it away from the banking cartel and corporations which has impoverished this nation.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm