Talk:Tax protester 861 argument

Attribution
Material in this article was originally contained in Tax protester statutory arguments, and was broken out from that article due to its length. Edit history for this material may be found there. bd2412 T 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the court report for the Marston case, the name of one tax protester is misspelled as "Larkin Rose." The correct spelling is "Larken Rose," I believe. Although the spelling is wrong in the case reporter, I have corrected the spelling in the article. Famspear (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary moved from article to talk page.
Bur niether the media nor the Government have anything to say of the acquittal of Constitutional Attorney Tommy Cryer by a Lousiiana Federal Petit Juey.

They also have nothing to say about the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette which states that Rights Protected By the Bill of Rights can never be legisalted against even by the vote of a Constitutional Amendment as evidenced by the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals decision on California's Proposition 8 defining Marriage as not including Homosexual Relationships, thus proving what was already stated in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.

This fact aside the Government and surviving past IRS Commissioners Cite the Amenemdent as Authority for the Income Tax. To this date the Courts avoid questions about the 16th Amendment. So the confusion persists and the truth is not spoken by the Government nor the Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.134.38 (talk • contribs)


 * Dear user at IP173.57.134.38: The late Tommy Cryer was a lawyer who was acquitted of a federal tax charge by a jury. The acquittal was indeed covered in the media. Cryer was a tax protester, but his arguments about the federal income tax were rejected in the very case in which he was acquitted. As I recall, the "tax protester 861 argument" was not one of the arguments he used, so Cryer is not really relevant to this article.


 * No court, in the case you cited or in any other case, has ever ruled that rights protected by the Bill of Rights cannot be changed by a constitutional amendment -- if that's what you're trying to say. Anything in the Consitution could be changed by a constitutional amendment.


 * It's difficult to follow your verbiage or what you're trying to say about homosexual relationships and the Brushaber case, which was about federal income tax.


 * The Sixteenth Amendment has indeed been cited as authority for the constitutionality of the U.S. federal income tax -- but the courts have also pointed out that the Sixteenth Amendment did not create the power to impose the income tax. The Congress has always had the power to impose the income tax, under Article I of the Constitution. The claim that "the truth is not spoken by the Government nor the Media" is incorrect.


 * The courts have not avoided questions about the Sixteenth Amendment. What the courts have ruled is that whether the amendment was properly ratified is a closed issue. The Amendment is a valid part of the Constitution. Period. Famspear (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)