14 votes

Judge Napolitano - 16th Amendment is the Great Fraud in US History

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wasn't this amendment

also rammed through without getting two thirds of the states to ratify it, thus making the adding of the amendment illegal?

Re: the 16th

it is all in the words . . . and to know what they mean one needs Bouvier's or a nice old edition of Blacks, law dictionary.
And as has been pointed out so many, many times at this site, one must know who one is and whether the jurisdiction of that ten-mile square location on the east coast applies to one.

Phil. 4:13

16th Amendment changed nothing!

Under Article I section 9 of the Constitution it says "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid" so how does the income tax get around this? Before you jump an say the 16th Amendment look at what the Supreme Court had to say about the 16TH Amendment.

"The Sixteenth Amendment.....does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects....
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)

What this means is the taxing power congress had before the 16th Amendment remained the same after the 16th Amendment.

1895 the Supreme Court stated that a income tax on wages was Unconstitutional.

So in 1895 it was Unconstitutional to tax wages an the 16th Amendment did not change anything.....so what makes it Constitutional today?

If the 16th doesn't change

If the 16th doesn't change anything, then why does it exist?

Direct v Indirect

The Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the federal government to regulate three areas of commerce: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” - in other words, foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce.

The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the 16th Amendment was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. What the IRS doesn’t inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary.

The Supreme Court, obviously being aware of all of the pertinent details, ruled in the Brushaber case that the federal government always had the power to tax income as an excise tax and, therefore, the 16th Amendment is constitutional.

The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The ”previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision.

A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.

The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.

The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

By realizing that Mr. Frank Brushaber was a fiduciary for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, it becomes obvious that the revenue being derived by the federal government from the income tax must come from foreign commerce.

After the Brushaber and Stanton Supreme Court decisions were rendered, the Treasury Department issued its own decision, Treasury Decision 2313 (TD 2313). TD 2313 was issued to “collectors of internal revenue” and it stated that the Internal Revenue Form 1040 is to be used only by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien who has received interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic (US) corporations on behalf of that nonresident alien. This Treasury Decision, which was based upon the Supreme Court decisions, confirms the foreign commerce nature of the income tax.

The statutes that make up the Internal Revenue Code must, therefore, be read in mind with the above Supreme Court decisions as well as the following Supreme Court decision:

“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

i don't want or need federal government services

other than doing only what is necessary for the actual national defense, i can't think of any "services" that i might want from the federal government. maybe the postal service too, but i'm not certain that wouldn't be better if privatized. the less the government does "for" me the better !!


ytc's picture

Great show!

I wish the good Judge Nap's show can be viewed by MANY thousands of more general TV watchers.

Does anyone know where I can get this video

on another source, as I want to post it on a large forum I am on, but they don't allow us to post websites with ads for selling things on them, because of their non profit tax status.

It was never ratified

But it is not the source of taxes layed.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Judge rocks the truth

Judge rocks the truth