I think I understand more about the quote from Falkus that talks about Gold is money. Apparently, money was considered equal to gold or silver. From my understanding, if you had money, it was given in trade for gold or silver at some point. Like if someone had gold, they put it in the bank, and the money could be spent anyway they wanted. The money always had an equal amount of gold and silver somewhere.

Eventually though the gold and silver became moot, and now banks create money from nothing, and the government agrees to back up the made up money.

It's rather strange to think that banks actually profit on money that does not exist yet, but will only exist after the loan is paid. Should we have another thread about money? That seems really interesting too.

I don't know, while I'm all for following the rules, this seems to be too worried about the letter of the law, and not enough about the spirit of the law.  He's saying that a law doesn't count as legally ratified if the states ratified a version with different capitalization used?  Or different punctuation?  I would wager that by this standard, none of the amendments passed before the 16th were "legally" ratified either.  Seems like Benson is trying to blow technicalities out of proportion.  The spirit of the law is that 3/4 of the states have to agree to the amendment for it to be put in place.  That seems pretty clearly to have been the case, even if the letter of the law might not have been met in every case (ie, some states ratified laws with different capitalization or punctuation).  I know that a lot of legal issues do boil down to the letter of the law, instead of the spirit of the law, but I really don't find this case particularly compelling.

According to the links,  21 of 48 states either did not approve of the ratification, or did not have the ability to ratify the amendment. So while punctuation seems trivial, there's still the issue that it was not ratified, (according to the source).

If 21 of 48 states don't have the ability to ratify, and the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment, that would mean no amendments are possible.  Only 8 states decided not to ratify it.  What Benson seems to be doing, when I look at the links, is looking at a 40-8 vote, and saying "well, some of you who voted 'yes' didn't actually have a vote, and some of you others voted for something with the wrong punctuation, so the no's win."  Again, I can see the 'letter of the law' argument, but the 'spirit of the law' argument is much more compelling to me.  And if 40 out of 48 states were in favor of the amendment, to me that says the spirit of the law means the amendment passes.  The fact that they voted for a law with different punctuation, or different capitalization doesn't seem like a legitimate reason for overruling their intent.  If states "don't have the ability" to ratify the amendment, that sort of means the ratification process is faulty, not that the particular amendment in question has been rejected.  It sort of goes back to what I said before: I would wager that all the same objections that Benson raises for the 16th amendment could be raised against all amendments before it as well.

I think this punctuation thing is distracting. Let's stick with the states that could legally ratify the 16th amendment. Specifically, income taxes. It appears the research is stating that 21 of the states could not or did not want ratification for that amendment. That means to ratify the 16th amendment would be breaking the spirit of the law.


It's a bit of a red herring to say no amendment could done if the 16th couldn't be ratified. It doesn't really change that legally, there seems to be a problem.

8 states didn't want it.  If 13 more couldn't legally support it, that's a problem of individual states breaking their own rules, not breaking the federal laws.  Sort of like if your pastor says you can't vote for a certain politician, but you do anyway, someone can't overturn the election and say you weren't actually able to vote for that candidate.  You might have broke some rule that applies to you, but the vote itself still stands.

More than 3/4 of the states wanted to pass the law.  To me, that meets the 'spirit of the law' criteria.  If they weren't 'allowed' to be in support of the amendment by their own state rules, but voted to ratify it anyway, that says to me they've decided the no longer accept those state rules.  If they were then voted out of office, and the next set of representatives then said "the last group broke the laws, and we're not going to follow their decisions," that'd be one thing.  But that doesn't seem to be what happened.


A problem of punctuation and capitalization, perhaps.  Not the kind of thing that I think people should really be getting too fired up about.  For me, the bottom line is that more than 3/4 of the states were in favor of the amendment.  That's the criteria that the constitution intended to be met.

Let me put it this way:  What do you feel was the intent of the states here?  Were 3/4 of the states in favor of ratifying this amendment or not?  If so, is it really the right thing to do to quibble over punctuation, spelling, or capitalization?  Benson seems to want to overrule the will of the states over grammar, which I would consider a far greater abuse of the legal system than letting a law pass even though some states voted for versions with different punctuation.

Yea, I get you feel that, but that's a bit of the problem. A vote that does not meet the requirement is not standing. For example, if I voted in that amendment, my vote counts for nothing since I'm not entitled to make that vote for the state.

Which is part of the issue. The government is an employee for the people. The government is there to represent the people.


I don't agree with that. Let's talk about the 21 states that didn't agree or couldn't agree with the 16th amendment. I'm not worried about punctuation. So if you want, I'll agree the punctuation is a moot point, and I'm sure a legal vote done in the proper manner would result in the state wanting the amendment. So let's now talk about the 21 others that didn't or couldn't ratify the amendment.


 According to the report, removing the issue of punction still means it was not ratified.

Well, I consider the state legislatures entitled to make that vote.


Yes.  And since the people, by and large, have supported this law, and don't seem particularly bothered if it contradicts some state constitutions, it would seem inappropriate to overturn their will.


Okay, let's talk about them.  But let's not group all these states into the same group.  Opposing ratification, and being in favor of it but allegedly unable to ratify it are two different things.  Probably we should get this out of the way early.  Have a look at your link's list of states.  Count up all the ones that, in one form or another, supported the law (ie, we're neglecting the 'moot point' issues as you suggested).  How many are there?


Yes, it says that.  But if you look at the numbers, that doesn't seem to be true.  Only 6 states voted against ratification (2 of which later voted to ratify it), and 2 more states never voted on it.  That's only 8 states that can be said to have opposed it, 2 of which later supported ratification.  ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html ).

If you say some of those states aren't actually allowed to vote on this, that sort of defeats the purpose of the process.  The idea is make sure changes aren't made to the constitution unless they have broad support of the states.  If you over turn the will of more than 3/4 of the states on annoying details, you're doing just what the process was meant to stop: setting laws based on just a few states desires, rather than on the will of the large majority.

According to Benson, not all were entitled. That's according to what the peopple had agreed to the powers of some states.

In all fairness, would you agree the states can't make up their own laws and change them just because, right? They do have to follow a process, else if they didn't laws are meaningless if they are not followed. Would you agree with that?


Actually, that seems an ideal reason to overturn a law. In the case of an appeal, that would be one of the better reasons to over turn a ruling. Would you agree that in a court of appeals, that would be a logical, and rational reason to overturn an amendment?


In support of the amendment were 27 out of 48. So 27 were able to support it legally.


Correct. I agree. The problem being pointed out is that it wasn't legally able to be ratified, so cannot be a legal amendment.

Sounds like you're accepting while it is not ratified properly, that the desire to be ratified, is just as legally binding. I think what you're saying is defeating the purpose of the process. If it takes 3/4 of the group to ratify, and they don't have all 3/4, why did they ever say 3/4 was needed? If the law cannot stand up, then it is not worth the paper it is written on.

The large majority wanted the ratification based on 3/4 of the states agreement. If they didn't or couldn't agree to it, then that means 3/4 of the group would not be able to ratify a law. Which was the intent of making sure 3/4 was needed.

So, would you say that some states don't have the power to ratify amendments?  If so, wouldn't that sort of break the whole process, and mean that nothing could ever be ratified?


Yes, laws that a government doesn't follow are pretty meaningless, which is sort of my point.  We've all probably read the lists of absurd laws that exist in places, like you can't take a bath on your lawn in town X, or whatever.  If the government doesn't enforce those laws, and the people don't make the government enforce those laws, they cease to be laws in any real sense.  Slavery is still legal according to some state constitutions, I believe.  The fact that they haven't amended the state constitution doesn't mean you can actually get away with owning slaves there, though.



Not a federal court, no.  The states didn't break any federal rules by ratifying the amendment.  If the legislature broke their own rules by doing it, that's for their state to deal with.  Again, it's like your church telling you you're not to vote for candidate X.  If you go ahead and do it anyway, your vote it still cast, and if that's the deciding vote, that candidate still gets elected.  No one can say "but he wasn't allowed to vote, his pastor told him not to!" and overturn the election.  The issue is between your pastor and you at that point.  Likewise, if the state legislature violates its own state constitution, that's a matter for the people of that state to deal with.  They can kick the bums out, and vote in a group of people who will retract the ratification, but until they do, I don't see it as an appeal's issue.  The fundamental question in the process is "do 3/4 of the state governments support this amendment?"  And the answer was yes.  The fact that some of them weren't supposed to support it isn't really the issue, at least not for the federal government.  The federal government doesn't enforce state constitutions, any more than it forces you to follow the orders of your pastor.


Have another look at the numbers in the chart itself, not just text describing it.

Here's my count, looking at the list in your link:
-Approved but with change in spelling, punctuation, wording, or capitalization (ie, in any of the 4 right-most colums): 38
-opposed (ie, in the 1st column, but not in any of the last four): 6
-"missing or incomplete" (ie, in column 3, but not in the last four): 2
-governor didn't sign, or some other irregularity (but not in the other groups): 2


What type of "not legal" though?  Did it violate state laws, or federal laws?  This is a question of federal law, and there was no federal law preventing these states from ratifying the amendment.  If they violated their own state laws in doing so, that's an issue for them to sort out with their people, but it doesn't change the fact that they did indeed ratify it according to federal law.

An example might be me forming a club, of which you decide to become a member.  But you're also a member of your family.  I ask you, as a member of my club, if you are in favor or opposed to something happening in the club.  Your mother tells you "don't you vote for any stuff in that club of yours!" and it might be a good idea for you to listen to her.  But if you don't listen to her, your vote still counts in the club.  You might have to answer to your mother for disobeying her, but that's between you and her, and doesn't affect the club.

Similarly, as far as the federal government is concerned, the state governments can vote anyway they like.  If they've set up rules that limit that, that's there business, and the federal government isn't going to enforce it.


The law is a tool, not an end unto itself.  The purpose of the law is to make sure the will of the state governments is taken into account.  Making sure every comma and capital letter of the amendment is the same in each case isn't the purpose of the law.  The reason we have the rules is to make sure 3/4 of the states agree to the rule before it goes into effect.  That happened.  3/4 of the states did indeed agree to the rule.  You're saying 3/4 of the states didn't support the law, but that's not true.  They did support it.  You can argue they shouldn't have supported it, but the fact is that they did.  That's what's important here.  Playing "Gotcha!" games with punctuation is silly, and not within the spirit of the law.  Remember, this is 1913 we're talking about.  They couldn't just cut and past it or even xerox it to make sure punctuation was the same.


No, it doesn't mean that.  It would mean that if they didn't agree to it, but if they "couldn't" agree to it, but then agreed to it anyway, they still agreed to it.  You're not legally allowed to shot someone, and if you do it anyway, it'd be a very poor defense to turn around and say "I don't know what you're talking about! I couldn't have done it, I'm not allowed!"


The intent of the requirement of 3/4 majority was to ensure broad support of an amendment before it became law.  There was clearly broad support.  You can argue that there shouldn't have been broad support, you can argue that the states shouldn't have ratified it, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't support, or that they didn't ratify it.  The intent of the 3/4 majority requirement was most certainly NOT to make it impossible to pass an amendment even when 40 or 42 out of 48 state governments were in favor of it.

Again, you're missing the spirit of the law by looking too closely at the letter of the law.  The state governments were in favor of this law.  More than 3/4 of the state governments wanted this amendment made.  That's all the constitution was looking for.

I think that's where you may be making a mistake. Benson isn't trying to say some states could not ratify amendments. He is speaking specifically about the 16th amendment.

I'm off, and will come back to the rest. This point seemed to be quick and clear though. I just wanted to say we're not taking about the ability to ratify any amendant, only the 16th.

I think that was my point actually. ;)

Unless you're argument is to say ratification on amendments do not require proper 3/4 agreement through legal proceedings, I don't see how this applies? Are you stating ratification does not need to be done in a legal valid manner?



I don't think I understand this. A non legal vote is legal when it's not caught until later? And are you stating if it were appealed at the state level, it could not change the federal level?

I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't make sense to me. That looks like saying person A is responsible, but when person B shows up and proves that person B is responsible, the group says sorry, but person A is responsible since they voted for person A. If one had no right to vote for person A, then it doesn't matter what the vote is. That just seems logical to me as a layperson.

  Yea, I guess we disagree. I would think it is an issue. Obviously the USA feels it is an issue too, as Benson was imprisoned, and abused within the prison for his stance.


Yes, I do see how you lump the groups together. And over all, I do understand a current vote today would still result in income tax. Currently, there seems to be a problem with the ratification and the way it was done. Maybe there's more to the issue, I'd like to hear more about it too. But according to Benson, the 16th amendment does have it's problem on the legal end of things.

The debate as I understand it is typically that taxes are illegal under the Takings Clause, i.e., that the government cannot take property from you without giving you due compensation.  So, for example, if it takes your house to build a road, it has to pay you the going rate for taking your house.

Taxes, however, are just taken from you.

I don't see any validity to the illegality issue, however.  The Constitution clearly makes taxes legal if they are used to carry out the powers given the federal government by the constitution.  It's part of our compromise for living in the country...we have to pay for it.  Granted, there were no federal income taxes 80+ years ago, but we have more infrastructure now too, and a more global society.

The Internal Revenue Code isn't really helpful on this front because regardless, it could not contradict the constitutional rights of the citizens.  Statutes are always trumped by the constitution.

I think most tax evaders who do it on principle are just protesting HOW the taxes are used, which also doesn't make sense to me.  You need to vote in people who will use them and be accountable for them, and then you must submit to the system to be a part of it.

Whether they're technically illegal or not, you should pay them because they're technically legal until a court says they're not.  I.e., there may be arguments about illegality, but don't count on those arguments being upheld and you getting a get out of jail free card.  We pay for our society; we do so through taxes, whether we like it or not.

I consider the state legislatures voting to approve an amendment to be a "legal valid manner."  The issue here seems that there are two sets of laws.  State laws, and federal laws.  Amending the federal constitution is a federal issue.  The process involved must follow federal law.  This happened, and the amendment was approved.  Under federal law, the state governments have the right to approve or reject the amendment.  If states have laws that limit what choice their governments can make, that's all well and good, but it's not a federal issue.  If the states governments broke their own laws by ratifying the amendment, that doesn't mean the federal ratification process hasn't been followed.  It means the states governments didn't follow their own rules, which is a separate issue.  Like a jewish person ordering pork chops at a restaurant.  They're violating their own rules, not the rules of the restaurant, so the restaurant will bring the pork chop just as asked.

Another example might be a Catholic voting in the last election.  Some priest told members of their churches that they couldn't vote for any candidate who supported abortion rights.  Some people disobeyed the priests, and voted for pro-choice candidates anyway.  That doesn't invalidate the election.  It might cause problems for the voters and their priests, but it they voted by the rules of the election, and their vote counts.


No.  The vote was legal in the sense that it followed the correct procedure for amending the federal constitution.  Some of the state governments who ratified amendment might have been breaking their own state laws by doing so, but that doesn't change the fact that they did it.  They have to answer to their constituents on that.  But the states did indeed ratify the law, which is all that matters for the amendment.  You can argue that some of the states that did ratify the law shouldn't have done so, but I don't think you can make a good case that they didn't do so.

If the people of one of these states voted out their governments for violating the state constitutions, and then repealed their ratification, things might have been different.  But as they haven't done that, it's sort of a moot point.  If they want to change the law now, they should go through the process of amending the constitution again.


You're missing the issue then.  Under federal law, the state governments do have the right to ratify the amendment.  They are the one specifically given that right.  If they don't have that right, then there could be no amendments at all.  Now, the states may impose upon themselves restrictions about what they can ratify, but it's up to the states to enforce those restrictions.  If the states ignore their own laws, the federal government isn't going to force them to follow them, just as the restaurant is going to refuse to sell a pork chop to someone if they're jewish.


He was put in prison for not paying taxes, I believe.  I'd have to hear more about the alleged abuse before I could say much more about it.  I'd be rather surprised to find that the federal government is particularly worried about this guy, though.


As do the 14th and 15th amendments (and likely all others before them, though they don't get mentioned specifically in the link like those two do).

Let's put it this way:
-Who does the federal constitution give the right to accept or reject an amendment? (I would say it gives it to the state governments)
-Did 3/4 of the state governments accept the amendment? (I would say yes)
-if you agree with the answer I gave for these two questions, it seems like the spirit of the law has been met.  Would you agree with that?

I'm not really going to argue a view of law from the way you look at it Tycho. While you feel that it follows the spirit of the law Tycho, and therefore it is now valid doesn't actually change the points. It's debating opinions on the law.

Heath, I agree that the government does need to pay for things, and taxes are they way they are going to get that money from us. I bring up the subject as it's really interesting to see some of the problems that have been brought up with the laws the way they are.

Hey, anyone know anything about a maximum amount of taxes? Can the USA decide to tax 100% of income if they needed it? Do they need advance warning? Do you have the freedom to opt out of taxes if you don't like where the money is spent? For example can you opt out a portion of your taxes if you oppose half of your taxes used towards the war in Iraq?

No, you can't opt out of taxes, for any reason (unless you have a super tax shelter or something else illegal).  You have full freedom to elect people who will make laws and enact policies that will spend your money.  If you don't like them, you have absolute freedom to get together with other people and try to elect new people, or run yourself or whatever.

People that say that you have the ability to opt out of your taxes are idiots.  That may be a strong word, but this Benson guy or whoever you guys have been talking about, he's an idiot if he's saying that a person has the legal right to opt out of taxes.  You should never listen to someone like that.  Congress has enacted several laws.  Cases have been argued all the way up to the Supreme Court and the courts have always, always, always backed the laws.  Legal precedent has been set tens of hundreds of times over, you can not opt out of taxes.  If you try, you will go to jail, you will be hit with huge tax fines.  You will likely end up losing your freedom, your assets and if you lost your freedom then obviously you also lost your ability to generate income, you could potentially lose everything.  It's not a good choice.

The US already does tax 100% of your income.  If you make less than a certain amount of money in a year, then you are "tax exempt" -- they realize that collecting income tax would just be too onerous and you don't have to pay taxes.  If you make over that amount, then you do have to pay taxes, on 100% of your income.  You may have to pay 20% tax on 100% of your income, you may be in a higher tax bracket and have to pay 50% or 60% on 100% of your income, but you have to pay tax on everything that you earn, unless you are earning money tax exempt money from a tax exempt source -- this is typically only if the government is itself giving you money, but even then sometimes you do have to pay tax on money that the government gives you.

There is likely a point where taxation would be so onerous as to intrude on our fundamental rights (not to mention creating a communist state)...That limit has yet to be tested, but if Obama is elected, it might be.  :)

Too much taxes is against our fundamental rights? I agree it would make it difficult to pursue plenty of freedoms, and happiness, etc, but could you explain where the tipping point would be then? It's a subjective stance, or course. But if 100% is too much, why would 50% be ok if it's not enough to have your fundamental rights. For example the debt load one has to take right now to acquire a house is difficult for tens of millions of people in the USA. People have to choose between housing, and eating at times.

Obviously 39.6% is clearly okay, plus consumption taxes, property taxes, etc.

If people vote for it or allow it, who knows how high it could go...70%, 80%, maybe.  Even if it got really, really high, there's still be a legal battle over it, and probably it would depend on socio-economic status.  So Bill Gates could probably be taxed a lot more percentage-wise than a poor person on the street, even though the poor person consumes much more of the benefits dollar-wise than Bill Gates.

Why is 39% ok? Ok for you, ok for most?

Alright, I'm trying to be difficult in this case. I think over all, 39% can't be ok, since there are so many people who are having a difficult time in providing a sustainable future that will see their children succeed.

I do believe one concern right now is that old age pensions will run out, which will mean that there will be a point when it will affects one's ability to retire.

39.6% is the highest tax rate for income tax right now (thanks to Reagan).  It used to be higher back in the Carter years.

In Sweden tax rate is 58%.

The U.S. tax rate was an average of 2.1% in 1931.

After the "socialization" of America through the New Deal, it reached 14.2% average by 1945, the first time it had ever reached double digits.  After Republicans took over again, the average dropped again, but only to 9.1% in the 1950's.  By the end of Kennedy, it had raised to 13.3% again.  The Vietnam war raised costs so it went up to 14.5% in 1969.  By the end of Carter's reign, the average reached an all-time high of 16.1%.

Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Act, and it steadily went down over the next decade.  But then Clinton passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts, so it started to go up after 1993.  By 2000, it had reached a high of 15.9%.

When Bush took over, it went back down to 12.6% in 2003.  Due to the war, etc. in the year or so after that, it went up to 13.1%.

These are just the national average.  Obviously, individuals are affected differently based on their circumstances and the progressive tax in the U.S.

Theoretically, I wouldn't be surprised if it exceeds 20% for the first time in history if Obama is elected, given the scope of what he wants to pass.  It would effectively be a new layer of socialization like the New Deal, except without the same expediency.  And once it goes up that drastically, it's unlikely to go down.

And that's a bad thing?