29 votes

Income tax is NOT constitutional.

First post on this matter : http://www.dailypaul.com/... .
After that I've done more research.
And now, I'm convinced, that income tax from earnings within the US is NOT constitutional.
And I bow to the genius of the Founding Fathers.

Everybody is very welcome to refute or add to what I'm about to write. But please be exact, quote laws, constitution, judge verdicts and so on.
And also, I'm challenging "constitutionality" of the income tax, not the subsequent laws, or that "everybody pays it".

The best explanation I've seen to this day

This document also addresses the laws and history of this matter. But it's very long, difficult and boooooring.
Big thanks to "THE BULL LION"

The best point is about the powers of the congress and the taxes:

US Constitution 1.8

"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;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)

"No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature."

BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)

"Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states. "

That means, that if the Congress lays tax on trade, or services within a state, it would also regulate that trade or service.
For example, if Congress does not like "shoe polishing", it can lay a 99% tax on it.
But the constitution does not give the congress the power to regulate "shoe polishing", or any other service or trade within a state.

I believe the "Commerce among the states", is mostly covered by US Constitution 1.9 :

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

As I understand it, the main goal of The Founding Fathers, was that internal commerce within the US would flourish, and companies from outside of the US, would be very motivated to move their business to the US to avoid the income tax, and so bring more and more capital to the US.

That also means, that the 16th amendment changed nothing on the constitutionality of the income tax. It is still constitutional on foreign trade, and not on commerce within the US.

WILLIAM E. PECK & CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


I don't have the right to steal your money. I am a person.

Governments are made up of people.

People can not transfer authority to governing bodies that they don't possess themselves

People created

People created the constitution,
which defines republic and government.

Constitution gives the government a limited ability to collect taxes.
Article 1.8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

In conclusion,
People gave other people the right to collect money to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

The problem is, what does

The problem is, what does "limited" mean to a bunch of people with limitless designs on power, right?



You can jack my taxes up to

You can jack my taxes up to 90% and it still isn't going to make a difference in my standard of living, so what's your point?

Are you referring to the fact that...

if taxes go up to 90% across the board that the market will adjust down prices so that commerce continues?

Not so fast.

1. While it may be partly true that people would survive, such a substantial reduction in capital would put luxury markets out of business, as money would flow first to necessities and stay there.

2. Then you have the problem of a government wasting all the new revenue on stupid new programs that further compete unfairly with (or just plainly distort) the market. Innovation and progress would be stymied everywhere.

3. The exodus of commerce from America would happen much faster than the exit of workers, thus leading to a substantial drop in mean wealth. I would move to Mexico, but I might starve to death before I got there.

If you like, I can recommend

If you like, I can recommend some great real estate agents down here.

wow what a gem!

so insightful!

how profound!

have you published any of your other work?

fascinating...gripping...edge of the seat reading material.


Excellent post ... today's ruling is firing up dormat and much overdue debate about what is written in the Constitution regarding direct taxes and apportionment.
Bob Schulz and www.wethepeoplefoundation.org is a good place for info on this topic

TOTALLY AGREE - IT IS NOT. Because if income tax WERE...

...constitutional, they would not have needed an AMENDMENT to allow for it.

And an amendment is not necessarily constitutionl by nature - just because it passed.

The question to ask is: Is an amendment constitutional in SPIRIT.

Clearly the 16th amendment is NOT.

Jefferson would be LIVID.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

16th amendment is not constitutional?

Would you please elaborate, how is the 16th amendment unconstitutional ?

Court ruled, that the 16th amendment does not change taxable sources, but only changes that the tax it stays in federal gov., and not apportioned between states.

I really do not understand, how that change can be unconstitutional.
Please quote some court rulings.

I don't know how they expect

I don't know how they expect us to pay for their Obamacare subsidy without an income tax. I don't buy enough yachts and champagne in a year's time for the excise tax to cover it.

Jurisdiction and income tax

The fed gov. legally taxes what it has jurisdiction over. Foriegn commerce, yes. But also FEDERALLY CONNECTED domestic earnings. Title 26 (I.R. Code) codifies this reality. Check the custom definitions in the code: Employee, employer, Wages. (note: custom definitions give terms specific meanings within the code. eg. "for the purposes of this code, CARS means lincolns and cadillacs." Are chevys cars? not for the purposes of the code. So, are you an "employee"? Do you work for an "employer"? Is your pay "wages"? So, does the federal government have jurisdiction over private sector earnings within the various states? NO! The scam works like this: A clerk, person who thinks (based on NO legal research, only common misunderstandings, send the feds an info return, w2, 1099, stating under penalty of perjury that YOU (now identified by this ignorant but well meaning individual as an "employee") earned "wages". The feds wait for you (another ignorant but well meaning individual)to verify the info sworn to, and you do so,also swearing that the info is true to the best of your knowledge. (notice how the phrase "best of your knowledge" suddenly has import? You concur with the ignorant clerk when you file a return. The government now has complete, verifiable, deniability. At no time did they tell you that you fell into their jurisdiction YOU TOLD THEM!!
Want to know how to stop them?? What if you notify them that the law does not make your earnings "taxable income" ? What if you say that you wish to use the form provided by the IRS to correct the FALSE info sent to them, and assert your right to have all witheld $$ returned to you?? What if all liberty loving Americans decided to educate themselves and STOP feeding the beast? Want more info?
WSHIELDS@COMCAST.NET Be ready to work, because you have to educate yourself. No one can do it for you. WSHIELDS@COMCAST.NET

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

One battle at a time,



is the biggest one we have!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

This is the wrong argument. The "REAL" problem is the ....

"Certificate of Live Birth" aka "Certificate of Death" that created a new Estate for the abandoned child.

When you Mother signed the Record of Live Birth, she made an announcement of abandonment of the child. She signed as the "Informant" otherwise known as the Trustee.

The Mother is an Estate; the Father is an Estate, when they get married it creates a Trust. The Mother's Estate falls under the Fathers (the Executor). The child is the property of the Father (Executor) because women cannot own offspring.

So the STATE coerces the Mother into signing as the Informant; she's acting as a Trustee and signing away the property of the Executor (the Father), and the Father never knew what just happened.

NOTE: Of course the doctor and nurse do not explain this to the Mother, they just put a certificate in front of her and say "Hey, you need to sign right here so we can get your baby a birth certificate", and the unknowing Mother just signs away.

Then the STATE runs an add in the local paper (to cover their ass), stating a child had been born and abandoned (they left out the abandoned part). That add was a call out to the Executor (Father) to come and claim his property (the child), but the Father just sat on the couch watching College Football and the Mother was busy framing the very certificate she signed away her child to the STATE with.

NOTE: The STATE made an attempt, due process, public notice to reach out to the Executor (Father) by running an add in the paper, but he never showed up. He looked at the add and smiled; cut it out and helped Mommy tape it in the scrap book, but he NEVER ACTED and claimed his property - his Child.

Party Hats and Cigars for Everyone ! Yaaaaaaaaay !!

So the STATE says "Okay, no one has claimed this child, so we'll take the child as our own". They send the Record of Live Birth to the State Health Dept. and Vital Statistics, where it receives a STATE seal and a Registrars signature, which is certifiable proof the Estate is now in Probate.

The Registrar is the court of Probate, and Probate deals with Estates of the DEAD.

So little Johnnie was abandoned by his Mother; she signed him away as the Informant/Trustee. The STATE runs an add to inform the Executor they have his abandoned property, but the Executor never shows up. The STATE declares the child DEAD and issues the parents a "Certificate of Live Birth" aka "Death Certificate", but allows the parents to continue to raise the child as legal guardians.

Now you understand why Child Protective Services can kick down your door at 3AM if they feel you are not properly caring for your (I mean their) child ... Remember, you the Mother signed the child over to the STATE when you signed as the "Informant"; you were actually signing as the Trustee of the Fathers Estate.

The Mother and Father quickly start using their new "Death Certificate" as a means of identity for Little Johnnie and teaches him that he must guard this certificate with his life; it's his identity, and he does just that!

Then he uses that certificate to get a Drivers License and SS Card, ultimately admitting he's a UNITES STATES employee, and now he is liable for the dreaded income tax.

The End

PS .... Every time I try to bring this topic up, it end up in the "Off Topic" section; buried from the rest of the world; hidden from the masses; swept under the rug.

The problem is the "Certificate of Live Birth" people!

When the Mother abandoned the Child acting as a Trustee, the Child became STATE property; a share in the stock of the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

The STATE kept the original "Record of Live Birth" and are securitizing on it. It's collateral for the debt of the country; it's making money off the future labor of the child. Then they send you back a "Death Certificate" or corporate-fictitious entity name, or presumption in law .... a DEAD person, and we start using it as a form of identity.

It's a constructive fraud to enslave us and unjustly enrich the STATE.

It's the CESTUI QUE VIE Act of 1666

Look up Tami Pepperman on YouTube, she's teaching procedures on reversing this:


This is now longer the case, there is no signature

Hospitals create BC without the knowledge of the parents. Mothers do not sign anything anymore. They will try to pressure you to get a SS# but not a BC.

Really? I just pulled up an Oklahoma Instruction Manual for

Completing the Birth Record and this is what it says:

"Signature of Parent

Have parent review the Certificate of Live Birth for accuracy, read the statement contained in this section and sign this section certifying the accuracy of the certificate. We suggest that you ask only the mother to sign the birth certificate. Never have a parent sign a blank or incomplete certificate".



Why do you think they emphasize having the "mother" sign the document? .... Do you see the light now?

Sam's Club could create a membership card for you and swear you are a member, but if your signature is not on the document/card, then does it have any merit or standing in law?

Is it a legitimate contract or agreement?

If the parent(s) don't sign the Record of Live Birth, is it worth the paper it's written on?

The Father is the Executor of that Child's Estate, period! The STATE cannot just take ownership of an Executor's property without some proof of transfer of said ownership, if they do, they are breaking the law; larceny; child trafficking, they are stealing the baby from it's rightful owners. This is why the Birth Record must be signed; and they want the Trustees signature; the one who's holding the property in Trust.

Who gave them that authority? A ghost? The ghost of Children Past? Am I dreaming, or is this a nightmare? The STATE can just file their own made up contract and take ownership of your Child without your written consent? ..... WOW! This is unbelievable; wonder how well that will hold up in court for them :)

They cannot 'legally' do that. I presume they can 'presume' the Father or Mother abandoned the Child, but if it goes to court, what is the STATE going to provide to validate their claim of ownership?

Answer: They must have a signature.

The parents do not have to register the birth with the STATE, they can still log it in the Family Bible; I don't think there is a law against that.

The parents also do not have to sign anything until they have taken time to read and study the terms of agreement.

As I said they will create it even without a signature.

Once you refuse to apply for the SS# They won't bother even asking about the BC. The hospital will just forward to the state without your knowledge. Legitimacy no longer necessary in America, they just do whatever they want.

You are more Pistol-Whipped by the STATE than I realized.

Did you read my comment above, or just make a knee-jerk, reactionary statement for the sake of "getting in the last word"?

If there is no signature, there is no contract ..... PERIOD!

They can't; they won't; they absolutely will not, just create a document for themselves, if there is a mother present to sign it. If the baby was found in a dumpster, then possibly, yes.

The Record of Live Birth comes before the SS Card; go read that instruction manual AGAIN .... That isn't an instruction manual on how to fill out the social security application. They aren't asking further down the page if you want your child to have a birth certificate, they are asking "along with and while you're filling out this birth certificate, would you like to go ahead and apply your child to social security"?

They will not do just whatever they want; they will do it legally, because they cannot afford the penalties of doing otherwise.

They can trick you; they can coerce you, but when the smoke clears, they'll have some paperwork with a signature on it to back up their ownership claim, or they won't OWN IT FOR LONG!


Not True

You must not be listening. They do not follow the law. They don't care about signatures. The will create a BC without parental knowledge even against explicit instruction. You may think they can't but those of us who actually resist have first hand knowledge.

I don't understand where is

I don't understand where is my argument wrong, nor do I understand where your post arguments the constitutionality of the income tax from income from within the US ?

I'm not trying to downplay your research, I'm trying to get the

point across that these arguments will not matter, even if they are correct, until we take back control of our Estate. The courts will not hear Constitutional arguments, because the court sees us as DEAD.

Until we wake up and let it be know that we are "ALIVE" in the proper court venue, this is all a waste of time. They will not hear these arguments; they always rule in favor of the STATE, because the judge is acting as the Administrator of our Estate; the STATE is acting as the Beneficiary, and they are treating us as the Trustees.

Trustees are toothless; trustees do not tell Administrators and Beneficiaries of a Trust what to do.

DEAD people/persons cannot bring Constitutional arguments into the court; they do not hear you.

It's the "Certificate of Live Birth" aka "Certificate of Death" that's the culprit.

I'm no expert but I've looked into this deeply.

The information you've provided is most certainly not wrong, it is in fact quite brilliant and interesting I enjoyed the video thoroughly. I think what he is tring to say is that it doesn't apply to us commoners because we are not sovereign citizens. The constitution written as the fore fathers intended applies to sovereign citizens of The United States, but because of the "Columbia Organic Act of 1871" that all changed. Since our parents signed us over to the State corporation THE UNITED STATES via our birth certificates we became property of the state and are not sovereigns. So then technically the constitution does not apply to those of us who were turned over to the State Corp. It's quite depressingly interesting information. I'm not sure if i believe it all, perhaps because I don't want to, but there is a wealth of information out there concerning sovereign citizenship and the corporation of THE UNITED STATES. Happy Researching!

It is all how you define what "YOU" are?

And what laws, and if the laws are not positive laws, but special laws, and if "YOU" are a subject to those special laws or not. DEFINITIONS and how they use it in a particular "LAW" or "CODE" or "RULES" is different from what you may think or know, and vary GREATLY from law to law even.

Freedom may be worth searching for.

I have given up on my fellow Americans, (not DPers) as I will not shed one more calorie trying to awaken anyone else who is not a critical thinker and does not have the inherent feeling that something is wrong.


All taxation is unethically premised upon anti-voluntary coercion and should be abolished

It depends on your definition

It depends on your definition of anti-voluntary. One can make the case that you can renounce your citizenship, leave the country, earn money in foreign dollars, and escape all types of taxation.

I don't like this whole "anti-voluntary" thing, because it is predicated upon the idea that you force everyone into a system where everything is voluntary...or, you don't punish those who chose to act in a non-volunteer fashion (since they haven't volunteered to join your volunteering paradigm), and you get a socially unbalanced system.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a


1) It all depends on your definition of anti-voluntary

I would define the term as "the prohibition of conscientious choice"

2) One can make the case that you can renounce your citizenship, leave the country, earn money in foreign dollars, and escape all types of taxation

One can also make the case that those things are only necessary within a society that is intolerant to freedom

3) I don't like this whole "anti-voluntary" thing, because it is predicated upon the idea that you force everyone into a system where everything is voluntary

i. Contradiction in terms
ii. A model of "volitional" governance coincidentally does not repudiate justice concerning the violation of individual rights

4) ...or, you don't punish those who chose to act in a non-volunteer fashion (since they haven't volunteered to join your volunteering paradigm), and you get a socially unbalanced system

Disagreement: a volitional apparatus of governance can be characterized by either public/private participation

Direct vs Indirect

What about sales tax?

Sales tax isn't voluntary to

Sales tax isn't voluntary to the seller. They're forced to impose the tax on their customers, and the government doesn't reimburse them for this service. It amounts to slavery when you're forced to provide a service for free. The same can be said of all employers who do the paperwork and withhold taxes from their employees. The government doesn't pay for this service either.