John, I did make note in my last post that there had been numerous (22 from my research) court cases by the Supreme Court that have ruled on the legality of the income tax. But, we are talking about a corrupt Supreme Court that makes rulings in the vested interests of the rich and powerful; the most notable one being Bush vs. Gore. The justice system works from the top down, and those of the very top, are the most questionable individuals in society. Fundamentally, I don't believe that any society, but more importantly its current structure, should be presided over by a group of people that have little or nothing in common with whom their supposedly making decisions for. For clarification purposes, that's my take on the Supreme Court, and the joke that it is.
Regarding your link-I've read some of it and will make a concerted effort to get through the entire article, as well as doing more research via other sources, which I have since reading your post. You've got my attention and consideration for accepting your affirmative constructive.
I have a rather strong criticism for the article in the link, however. The very first sentence is a ridiculous ad hominem attack (referring to tax protesters as "fanatics, idiots, charlatans, and dupes"). Direct insults like this by anyone, I believe, destroy the validity of the partial, or full, point that they may make. But I don't find his adjectives surprising, considering the profession and how SOME develop an ego that pontificates an air of superiority. Also, I did a quick search of his name, and came up with a web site that he's constructed which solely deals with the "idiots" that he deplores. It's obvious that he's vehemently opposed to anyone that merely questions income tax. Not that this is a bad thing, everything could be factual, but if one was truly objective, the website and material posted on it is consonant with a website that questions the legality of income tax. Ultimately, everything stated, and all of the sources, should be investigated to see if they are true, rather than accepting them as such (I will be the first to admit that I am guilty of not investigating everything I read or see, but I do, more often than not). The website is, after all, one person's research and opinion. and just because he's an attorney at law, doesn't mean he should be given a free pass; just as I wouldn't believe an ounce of what is spat out of Alan Dershowitz's (a fraud) mouth.
As a result of the research that I have done, I'll change my opinion to "I really don't know". I do have a strong belief (not an understanding) that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, so it is technically unconstitutional, and it's the arm of the law, along with a corrupt system that ultimately makes those that qualify, have to pay (legally, many people don't have to pay income tax). I've also learned that tax avoidance (similar to tax evasion) is perfectly legal, and apparently used by some of the richest corporations-
link .
I do have a question for you though- has/is (historically) the role of the supreme court been to define the law through their judgments instead of interpret the constitutionality of law? So, the way it works is that "they" said income tax is constitutional, and whether it is true or not, it becomes pseudo-constitutional by power of judicial precedent?
I didn't post a response to try to garner more replies and continue this subject, but rather to let you know that I have changed my opinion, if only to "sitting on the fence". The beauty of this forum is that we can all have intelligent discussions without holding a beef toward someone (at least I hope that's the case). I also want your thoughts on my question, because I don't truly know how the Supreme Court works.
Thanks,
Cam
