Comments on: The Path to Freedom: Interposition for Liberty

By: 1 Voice of America

1 Voice of America — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:03:23 +0000

This is an excellent idea for STEP 2 of the repossession of our government by “We the people”. The essential step precedent to resolving the problem is one far easier for our State to take to protect us from the federal government; it is for our State to Repeal the 17th Amendment. It is the 17th that permits the federals to tax incomes. Before that amendment passed, incidentally also disturbing the fundamental check created by the state’s selection of its Senators by the legislatures and eliminating the State’s from any direct control of the excesses of the federal government, the feds were limited to collecting TARIFFS [NO WORLD ORDER] and FEES.
The States right to repeal any infraction of original rights cannot be impaired. Hence, with a Supreme Court stressing arguments based on “original principles” where the federal government has no right to lay a tax, there can be no adverse consuences under law.
Then we do not need the artifice of the proposed tax collecting procedure; we can merely pass our own tax laws to generate whatever income the citizens of Georgia need — including support for our aging population presently dependent on the “social non-security of the federal government”. With that tax system and its ability to cover our own needs for medical, etc. and our desire we can limit access to our money for any group not lawfully in this State.
THINK ABOUT IT. LOOK AT THE 17TH AMENDMENT WEB SITE AND GET THE FACTS AND GET ON BOARD. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL BE BEFORE ALL THE STATES REPEAL THE 17TH.
A GEORGIA PATRIOT.

By: Ken B

Ken B — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:38:50 +0000

So the question here is: If the 16th amendment contradicts the 10th amendment which one is valid?

By: Mike Rogers

Mike Rogers — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:18:11 +0000

I agree with some of your cautious posters that, having allowed the 16th and 17th ammendments to be ratified, we will have a harder time nullifying them, but as I recall, the original constitution specifically forbade an income tax, and meant for the federal government to be funded bytaxes on goods (tariffs).
Leaving aside the arguments against taxing international trade for a moment, I’d like to say that I completely agree with Mr McBerry’s proposal to collect taxes locally, and forward only a portion to the Feds.
I believe that it will take a majority of states, and possibly a constitutional convention to truly stuff the Federal genie back into its bottle, but I have a proposal of my own along the same lines as Ray:
Let the states collect the taxes and manage their local programs, and levy a charge upon the states for maintenance of those enumerated federal functions, BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF STATE BUDGETS – shazzam! the most frugal states will pay least to the Feds – what a way to stimulate creativity!

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 02:59:28 +0000

John: Thanks for stopping by. We hope to hear more from you soon!

By: John Lofton, Recovering Republican

John Lofton, Recovering Republican — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:01:41 +0000

Pro-interposition site; check us out, pls; comment.

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com

Recovering Republican

JLof@aol.com

By: arkie

arkie — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:20:32 +0000

[# Al Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, tax attorney Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification. Yet another illegal act by our employees. While it occurred quite awhile ago, it nevertheless lends credence to the founders concern over an out of control federal government. The only difference between then and now, is with tyranny firmly in place, lead by a de-facto president, we are losing our nation daily, instead of over decades, it what amounts to a one party system. Checks and balances are gone, with the power firmly in the hands of the people to stand up, turn this around and implicate the multitude of traitors criminally ensconced as our employees.]

I am not a Georgian, but I am in total agreement with Al. I could only hope for such a man to run against our wimpy governor of Arkansas. We had a Tenth Amendment Resolution up for vote twice and it was voted down by a Democrat majority that we have. Their excuse is that it would do no good anyway. Our federal government is operating above the law and usurping the powers that belong to the States. They have broken the contract of the Constitution, and it is up to the people NOW to do something about it!

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:04:14 +0000

Bryce Shonka wrote:

Taxes are enumerated, though the current Federal income tax system is regarded by many as outside of what was enumerated.

Well, let’s look at it like this: They had to amend the constitution in order to … constitutionalize collecting federal taxes on the income of individuals. So, yes, a federal income tax is most definitely outside the scope of what was (originally) enumerated.

Also, the sixteenth amendment (may it burn in effigy!) contains that dreaded phrase that we see so often in constitutional amendments — “The [U.S.] Congress shall have power to” … whatever. Any time you see a version of that phrase in any amendment to the constitution, you can rest assured that it is not an enumerated power or in any way derived from an enumerated power.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:46:51 +0000

Amen!

By: Lawmage

Lawmage — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:30:57 +0000

Jeff, we are on the same side here. I did not mean to suggest an Amendment was required to rein in the Federal government’s abuses of the States’ rights. I meant rather to suggest that the Amendment process could be used to more tightly restrict the actions of the Federal government rather than what Mr Berry suggests (federal taxes under the control of Georgia). For instance, on the topic of taxation and Federal abuse thereof, we might consider an amendment that gets rid of the 16th Amendment and with it Federal income taxation. Such an Amendment might specify that the 16th Amendment is invalid, dictate that the Federal government no longer has the power to tax individual or corporate incomes, and impose other necessary and proper restraints on the the taxation power granted to Congress under Article I, section 8. Quite frankly, I think the best way for us (as in We The People) to restrain or constrain the Federal government is to eliminate the funding that allows it to carry out its tyrannical abuses and to coerce or co-opt the States into assisting it in those abuses.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:59:17 +0000

Lawmage says, “I would submit there is no point in trampling the Constitution while claiming to seek to restore the balance between State and Federal government. In the second place, the solution to our current grievances with an out of control Federal government is readily at hand. The Legislatures of the several States have the authority, acting in concert, to dictate to the Federal government through the Amendment process.”

Therein lies the BIG problem. There are certain rights that we consider SHALL NOT be violated, despite whatever a majority in a democracy desires. For example, the right to bear arms is supposedly an inviolate right that a majority cannot trample. The same goes for free speech.

So, by analogy, the limitations on the federal government are set out in the Constitution. Not even a democracy, by majority, is permitted to trample the protections against federal usurpation.

So, you tell me…. Why should it take 3/4′s of the states’ legislatures to pass amendments to restrain the federal government from exceeding its authority?

It is not supposed to work that way. Therefore, I submit, as I always have consistently, as long as you try to place the limits of the Constitutional process upon YOURSELF, when the other side who is usurping its authority sees no need to do so at all, you are under FAR MORE constraint than was ever envisioned.

For example, the federal government is not permitted to take your private property without just compensation. What if it starts taking people’s private property without compensation and the US Supreme Court says, “That’s okay.”? Do we REALLY have to amend the Constitution? What would you amend? It’s already in there.

We should not be required to garner the support of 3/4 of the states to protect my state’s rights against federal usurpation by a simple Congressional majority. My state’s rights do NOT depend on the will of the other states to preserve theirs. We should not require any votes at all.