The income tax is Constitutional, read the 16th amendment you ******* moron.
dear, if I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again.
See why we are absolutely positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.
Ed, am I taking your quote out of content?
He quoted you saying the tax was unconstitutional and the income tax was ruled unconstitutional. See the parts underlined in red...
Gentlemen: Can we agree that the federal income tax was made Constitutional by the "letter of the law" by passing the 16th Amendment, but how it is enforced or applied may be Unconstitutional "by the spirit of the law" depending if it respects people's religious freedom or imposes in ways they don't consent to give authority to federal government?
Personally I have a problem with people giving authority to federal govt to impose laws that are biased against people or groups trying to defend and support policies that don't impose on their religious and political beliefs, provided they are willing to take that responsibility themselves and not impose their beliefs in turn on other dissenters the same way.
If people agree to vote and give STATES the authority to cross that line, as long as they agree to live with the outcome regardless how the votes turn out, that's fine. But it makes no sense to me to defend one's views and then use a system of majority rule that is going to oppress either one side or the other on issues where religious differences are involved.
That is bad enough when the govt is abused to impose a biased policy, and made worse when taxation is used to force dissenters to fund such a policy they don't believe in.
So that part I find to be unconstitutional "by the spirit of the law" by the 1st and 14th Amendment, and would recommend either consensus or separate localized policies for all such issues that involve religious bias instead of imposing one side by majority rule so that the views or interests of the minority party are not equally represented or protected by law.
I believe if people resolved their differences directly, instead of pushing that onto govt responsibility, most of the opposition and problems with tax policy could be avoided. People could just as soon invest their taxes locally and statewide to solve problems by party in keeping with the principles and programs they want represented, reduce the responsibility and burden on federal govt to just areas of public agreement, which would then reduce the federal taxes to support a limited govt as the Constitutional founders originally intended.
Most of the work was supposed to be reserved to the States and people so it could be handled more democratically, and not fear federal bureaucracy taking too much control.
