Hey folks - you need to keep in mind that the "not ratified" argument is not what will be discussed, and for obvious reasons. The IRS is not competent to comment on whether their marching orders were or were not properly ratified by the People. It is the actual content of their statutory authority that is in question. What WILL be discussed is the simple fact that, to make the current internal revenue code constitutional (two previous attempts having been overturned by the courts), those framing it simply omitted to require people to do any action that government had no authority to require. Instead, taxes are collected from multitudes who don't owe them by suckering them into "voluntary" self-assessment. Once they have declared themselves "taxpayers" - usually by declaring themselves "US citizens" (federal subjects who have no Constitutional or Common Law protection) on an SSN application - the courts use tricks of equity contract law (which apparently doesn't require knowing consent) to force them to file information returns and pay tax. Various strategies for undoing the damage have been tried with varying degrees of success. Irwin Schiff is the most successful of the strategists, having successfully practiced what he preaches for decades. The best strategy for most individuals is not to rely on courts (staffed by beneficiaries of the fraudulent tax), but simply to drop out of the system. Nobody pays any attention to notices of SSN revocation, but if you simply stop using the one assigned you - that does work. Few employers have the courage to refuse an IRS Notice of Levy, however obviously illegal it is - so employ yourself. And so on. As time passes, Atlas shrugs; the smartest and most productive get out first, leaving sheeple as both beneficiaries and sole contributors to the fraudulent system that they inhabit. It has been happening in my lifetime: people who, forty years ago, would have had no choice but corporate employment with all the liabilities that implies, now would not consider working for anyone but themselves. Hang 'em high? Why bother. Make 'em ineffectual! Marc de Piolenc Petro wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2002, at 09:00 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I've never quite understood how the amendment-not-ratified-properly-in-1913 argument is supposed to play out.