Doesn’t the Sixteenth Amendment prevent the IRS from owning us?
The Sixteenth Amendment does not let the IRS own you otherwise the whole Constitution is a meaningless document. The Founding Fathers did not allow for a direct capitation tax on people which would turn their Founding Children into serfs and the Sixteenth Amendment proves this. AND don’t tell me about paying some Fair Share either because you will never finds these words or even this sentiment expressed anywhere in OUR Constitution. You will however find it expressed in the 2nd Plank of the 10 Plank Communist Manifesto, and that tells you precisely what it should tell you.
I am Richard Brown circa June of 1941 and a former US Marine. I took an oath to protect this country against ALL enemies both Foreign AND Domestic. It was thought silly back in 1960 because we had no idea what a Domestic Enemy was, no not a Domestic Terrorist but a Domestic Enemy. Today we know that definition to mean those who try to subvert Our Constitution. Some obvious Domestic Enemies of the Constitution today are surely the ones Scamming you on the Wording of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Even this second adjectival phrase “from whatever source derived,” is a blatantly obvious effort to deceive you by placing the verb at the end of the phrase. They knew that if they claimed they could tax “incomes, derived from any source,” it would be in the real English we all speak and then way to obvious that income derived from a source is could not possibly be your paycheck.
The Sixteenth Amendment Slams the Writing of Quatloos
Quatloos, a IRS pseudonym or at least writing on the Internet as such, and per their words ridicules and dismisses people and groups who Market and Sell a variety of information based on interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to the Internal Revenue Code, and indeed the Internal Revenue Service itself.
But isn’t Quatloos really a perfect example of an ANTI-Constitution, ANTI-American Domestic Enemy because it just arrogantly discredits those who get it wrong. Quatloos makes no attempt to ever clarify people’s misconceptions like what an ethical Pro-Constitutional organization would do. Quatloos talks down to people by misdirecting every Query people have just like you’d typically see those do running a scam you’re starting to catch on to.
Yes, most Patriots do get it wrong with what could be frivolous arguments. They intuitively know there shouldn’t be a way for our government to reach into our lives to confiscate a large part of our labor but not sure how to unravel the deception. Now we realize that it’s in the Sixteenth Amendment where the IRS gets ALL of its authority. If it isn’t found here, the IRS does not have it!
I am asking everyone to read for themselves just how disingenuous, ANTI-American, and ANTI-Constitutional Quatloos sound, more like the Domestic Enemies of our Freedom we all swore to protect America from that day we all swore the Oath to become a US Marine.
Can you tell when someone is Shucking & Jiving you?
How about if it is as obvious as their statements below? Quatloos claims the arguments advanced by these groups include:
Quatloos: False arguments that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (authorizing the income tax) was not properly ratified.
ANSWER: Actually, the Sixteenth Amendment probably was never properly ratified per the tremendous Research Bill Benson conducted over the years BUT so what? Sorry Bill, we don’t even have to go there because it doesn’t matter in the slightest to all those whose incomes which are not DERIVED FROM from whatever source.
Quatloos: False arguments that the Internal Revenue Code was not properly enacted by Congress.
ANSWER: Not even sure what Quatloos is mumbling about here because I have never heard this argument. If they’re implying that many are claiming that the IRS Code was never codified then this is true. The IRS Code was never codified as is clearly evident or it would be the IRS Law Book and not the IRS “Code” Book. As an attorney Quatloos should know this or he would have to be the dumbest lawyer to ever graduate Law School. Is he chewing gum while he writes his ridiculous statements? I wonder…poetry slam in puerto rico
When I was in the Marines I had to iron my shirts with three creases down the back. It was the Military Code but the second I was discharged I was no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.) Hence the reach of a Code - any Code, can only encompass those subject to that code. In Other Words, others who were NOT in the military were NOT subject to the Military Code therefore, some entity would have to first have Sixteenth Amendment Income that was DERIVED FROM whatever Source to then become subject to the IRS Code.
You did know that US Title 27, Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms which some still confuse with US Title 26 IRS is Codified, right? AND therefore BATF is the Law and not just some Code. US Title 26 aka the IRS Code which was never Codified and will never be Codified so therefore can NOT be a Law. The IRS Code can ONLY apply to those subject to it because they had: you know, income DERIVED FROM a source, whatever source.
Quatloos: False arguments that the Internal Revenue Service was not properly constituted by either Congress or the Department of the Treasury (and is therefore operating as an “illegal” entity)
ANSWER: Many have come to know the IRS lately for their deception in the way they Shuck and Jive us into thinking that they have authority over “ALL” of our income, but we do agree they are certainly Legal. We know this because Congress made them Legal in the Sixteenth Amendment giving them the authority to collect a tax on Income providing that it was “DERIVED” “FROM” whatever source.
Quatloos: False arguments that “income” cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be owed.
ANSWER: Of course Income can be defined Mr. Quatloos AND was defined in the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 some 4 years prior to the Sixteenth Amendment of 1913. But, it is NOT defined anywhere in the IRS Code Book. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill denounced the U.S. income tax code as “9500 pages of gibberish.” Does it not bother anyone else that the IRS demands we all pay them a tax on Income but will NOT define Income anywhere? Would we even be having this disagreement if they simply put a definition for income in their Code Book? Or do they purposely avoid the definition because it would just admit they have no authority over our Colloquial Termed Income aka paycheck?
Income is also defined in every dictionary to mean something coming in. BUT the Sixteenth Amendment did not tax income; it taxed Income FROM whatever Source DERIVED or Income DERIVED FROM whatever Source. Changing where we place the verb “DERIVED” in the adjectival Phrase does NOT in any way eliminate the word “FROM” from the phrase! Therefore, the Sixteenth Amendment can ONLY Tax Income if it’s “DERIVED” “FROM” a Source, whatever Source.