You Tube Questions for Ron Paul - Interview this Friday

Thank you Rachel for forwarding the info below from Steve. The interview is set for Friday and will be completely made up of YouTube questions. Details in the video below: Spread the word, far and wide!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Health Care

Dr. Paul,

I'm excited to finally have a candidate who represents ME in the running! Thank you for that. My only question is your plan for health care. It's clearly a disaster in this country. I know you're for a limited government, and for the most part, so am I, but private companies are already handling health care and it's an absolute mess. Those of us who freelance or are self-employed simply cannot afford to go to the doctor because the insurance plans that we CAN afford are essentially catastrophic injury policies that do not include the basics like office visits. What, if anything, would you do about this as President?


16th amendment

Dr. Paul,

The Constitution clearly limits Congress to two types of taxes (direct and indirect), yet most so-called experts say the sixteenth amendment imposed an additional tax on income that fits neither definition. My question is, can an amendment somehow override, or repeal the original intent of the Constitution with concern to the two types of taxes thereby creating a third tax?

Thanks, this one has been weighing on my mind for some time,


Amendments are Part of the Constituition

Any amendment to the Constituition becomes part of the Constituition. It can override anything previously written in the Constituition. It is the way the framers created so that we could alter the form of government they set up. The amendment process is difficult so that it doesn't get changed in the heat of passion over some issue. Unfortunately, the American people have been conned into altering the Constituition several times.



Thanks for the response. I was under the impression we were submitting questions for Dr. Paul (probably misguided on my part). That said, I'm certainly for an open dialogue on the topic.

I believe you are correct that an amendment can alter the Constitution, however, what we did not get with the sixteenth amendment was an explanation as to what Constitutional class of tax the "income" tax falls under.

It's important to make the distinction between the two because each is implemented differently. A direct tax is unavoidable. It must be paid. An indirect tax is avoidable as long as certain activities are the not the subject of a tax. For example, there is a tax imposed upon tobacco use. However, I can avoid the tax by not smoking.

Of course the 16th is of no help in making this determination, there is no mention of direct or indirect specifically. Only a hint toward a direct tax with the words, "without apportionment among the several states."

16th Amendment conferred NO new power...

Stanton vs. Baltic Mining US Supreme Court Decision states:

"It was settled by the previous ruling that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred NO new power of taxation"

So if the government didn't have it before, and didn't get it, then they don't have it.

It is very well understood that the 16th amendment ONLY categorized the income tax as an indirect excise, NOT a direct tax that can be laid without requiring apportionment.

The Brushaber US Supreme court decision said that the assumption that the 16th amendment creates some unknown hitherto power of taxation was a frivolous argument. They said the 16th amendment did NOT create the ability for the Federal government to lay a direct tax without apportionment. The Brushaber court said that that understanding of being able to lay a type of direct tax without apportionment is without merit...

Therefore, if the Income Tax is an indirect excise then it MUST be applied as an indirect excise. There must first be a privilege exercised before any tax is due.

What's taxable:

Federal employee's at any level
Foreigner's and non-resident aliens
Americans working in Federal Possessions (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc...)
Multinationals and foreign corps.

What's not taxable:

Average American living and working within the 50 states in the private sector are NOT shown to be taxable throughout the code and cannot.

This second category of "what's not taxable" would be a direct tax that would require apportionment, but the first listing of what is taxable would be considered an excise in relation to the income that is earned in connection to the federal income tax.

That is the truth. Constitutional amendments MUST repeal certain aspects of the original Constitution or another amendment in order to change the meaning of certain clauses. That's why the Supreme court said the 16th amendment conferred NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION!!!!!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!


Thanks, I'm familiar with the Stanton, Pollock, and Brushaber cases and couldn't agree more. I was just hoping to hear it from the "horse's mouth" as it were.

Nonetheless, we should be involved in some sort of dialogue on the subject as patriots.

You probably won't like this

You probably won't like this

article by Sheldon Richman, but I happen to think he's right. As do the courts, who seem to say the Amendment mattered, and that they didn't need more power to tax.

Well, you probably won't like this than either...

I happen to think Sheldon Richman is completely off. He does not even mention the Stanton or Brushaber rulings which were the first decided in 1916 which unequivocally state that the 16th amendment does not allow congress to directly tax without apportionment. Period. Nothing can be clearer. If the lower courts are NOT in compliance with the Supreme Court, then the lower courts should be disregarded. The matter of the application of the 16th amendment in regards to the constitution is already settled.

Read the Brushaber and Stanton rulings here:

Brushaber Case Here

Stanton Case here

Then read Adam Smith's wealth of nations from 1776 where the following is stated:

"Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes."

The Founding Fathers were well aware of this. That's why US Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

There it is, a capitation is a direct tax on the wages of the lower ranks of people.And, this did not change with the ratification of the 16th amendment.

Congress could NOT directly tax without apportionment then and they can't do it now.... And as we've seen, a tax on the wages in the PRIVATE SECTOR, not wages as applied in the Internal Revenue Code, cannot be collected unless apportioned....

Case dismissed....

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

income tax


To the contrary, I do like it! We all should be involved in this discussion no matter the perspective.

I'm familiar with FFF and I read the article and agree that we should attack the income tax on moral grounds. The income tax has destroyed families and businesses all across this country. Most every Libertarian, myself included, considers the income and inflation tax to be tantamount to slavery.

I for one will not let the fed steal the fruits of my labor in order to redistribute my wealth to the underserving without my consent. That is immoral, not to mention illegal my estimation.

Matters not to me if they see our arguements as frivilous. Anyone who has attempted to wade through the statutes and codes knows how convoluted they are and how riduculously confusing any ensuing debate will be. Frivilous therefore must be in the mind of the beholder.

The bottom line is, let's attack them from every angle available.

Income tax question!

Dr. Ron Paul.

This question is basically about the Income Tax. I know you have already admitted on camera in Freedom to Fascism the reality that you personally can't cite a law that requires most Americans to file a 1040. That's courageous being a politician to tell the truth like that.

My question is: (a slightly long one)

I being someone who completely believes that most Americans are being swindled under the color of law by the federal government into filing a tax return most people aren't required to file on a tax they don't owe or facing the threat of imprisonment for not doing so, are you willing to make this a serious charge against the government as a conspiracy to misapply the existing law which is forcing non-taxable citizens into filing what they don't owe in the first place as part of your campaign in general, or would something like that not be feasible in your campaign at this time due to the nature of the situation?

Thanks 4 being truthful.


Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson - 7/11/07

Catch the video here-


Thank you for the opportunity Steve!

Congressman Paul, You've expressed to the media several times that the show of support for your campaign has taken as a pleasent surprize. Has it surprized you enough to run as an independent if you do not win the Republican nomination? You will have earned it in my opinion. Thank you, and remeber, The Force IS with YOU!