Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 3

Cert. history on Knoblauch

Regarding the case of Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9109 (5th Cir. 1984), cited in the main article, some sources list the year of denial of certiorari as being in 1985 and others show it as being in 1986. I'll try to check on this later. Yours, Famspear 15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert possible copyright violations

On 24 June 2006 I reverted material inserted that apparently was copied in large part from other web sites. See, e.g. at http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/Who_worded_16th.html Yours, Famspear 22:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Otto Skinner's (apparent) copyrighted materials have been removed again, with a note on the user's talk page [[1]] regarding copyright, etc. Yours, Famspear 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Materials deleted from article

[Copied from talk page for CFVertigo, and addressed to CFVertigo:] Dear fellow Wikipedia user: The materials you twice inserted into the above-referenced article were apparently copied and pasted from from other places on the internet. The materials are claimed to have been authored by a Mr. Otto Skinner and are found at, among other places, his web site at http://www.ottoskinner.com/articles/Who_worded_16th.html

These materials are presumptively subject to copyright, and probably should not be inserted into Wikipedia articles. Especially, they should not be inserted without attribution with respect to authorship (whether the actual author is Mr. Skinner or someone else).

Also, Mr. Skinner is a notorious publisher of Tax protester materials. Therefore, although his status as such does not necessarily disqualify him from being a source for materials, you should take care when citing to Mr. Skinner as a source for authority in tax law matters. Yours, Famspear 16:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The version of the 16th Amendment as it stands today was written by Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. This is a matter of public record via the Congressional Record. Now the political discussions regarding the 16th Amendment and taxes in general are numerous and will likely continue for many years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CFVertigo (talk • contribs) on 26 June 2006.

Greetings! A copyright violation with a few lines reworded is still a copyright violation. In any event, the statement that "if the amendment authorized a direct tax, it would cause one part of the Constitution to come into irreconcilable conflict with Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4" is pure idiocy on the part of its author. Virtually every amendment to the Constitution is irreconcilable with the portions of the Constitution which it alters, otherwise an amendment would not be needed at all; Congress could just pass a law having the effect sought by the amendment. After all, the Constitution originally recognized slavery, a position irreconcilable with the 13th Amendment prohibtion of Slavery. The Constitution once required Senators to be elected by their state legislatures, a provision irreconcilable with the direct election of Senators enacted by the Seventeenth Amendment. Also, the "rich soaking the rich" is nothing out of the ordinary - John Kerry is one of the wealthiest men in America, and the Kennedy clan has long held an enormous fortune; Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an immense fortune when he enacted massive wartime tax increase. The senior George Bush enacted a tax increase on the wealthy. Donald Trump has called for a 17% property tax against the wealthy, and Warren Buffet supports tax increases on the wealthy. Remember also, the Sixteenth Amendment was passed around the same time that Congress passed new antitrust laws forcing large corporations to dissolve and costing industry tycoons billions. Around the same time, Congress prohibited child labor, began regulating working conditions, strengthened unions, and held lengthy public investigations in which concentrations of wealth were portrayed as a base evil. So, there's your historical context. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove other people's comments. [addressed to CFVertigo]

You removed material warning you about copyright violations not only from your own talk page, but also from the talk page of the relevant article. This is not considered good behavior and could result in your being blocked. Please don't do that again. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What does all this rambling about Donald Trump and Warren Buffet have to do with the 16th Amendment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CFVertigo (talk • contribs) 26 June 2006.

Dear CFVertigo: Your second deletion of other people's comments from your talk page has been restored. Please stop removing other people's comments from this page. Thanks Famspear 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings again - in answer to your question about "all this rambling about Donald Trump and Warren Buffet", the material you added suggests that Congress could not possibly have intended to tax incomes by passing an amend imposing a tax on incomes because some people asserted to have been involved in drafting the language were wealthy. Ergo, the argument is that wealth=opposition to tax increases, which can be empirically disproven both now and as of the time that the income tax was passed. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly was "upheld" in the Brushaber case: a little hair-splitting exercise

On 26 June 2006, I made an edit to a reference in the article that the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber "upheld" the Sixteenth Amendment. It is true that the Court "upheld" the Amendment in the general sense that a court "upholds" any provision of the U.S. Constitution when interpreting that provision. However, the Court in Brushaber did NOT technically "rule" that the Sixteenth Amendment was valid. The Court ruled that the income tax statute in question was valid under the Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment. Technically, a court of law "rules" on -- or "decides" -- only those issues that the parties actually litigate (only the issues that the parties actually argue about before the Court). Mr. Frank Brushaber technically never contended that the Amendment was invalid. The courts have indeed RULED many times that the Sixteenth Amendment is a valid part of the U.S. Constitution, but those rulings were rendered in other cases -- where the parties actually fought about that particular issue. Just a little legal hair-splitting! Yours, Famspear 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I think this section should also contain information on the 861 evidence. Thoughts Morphh 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Section 861 is a statute. It's part of the Internal Revenue Code. This article is about the Sixteenth Amendment, which is a constitutional provision, not a statute. The two are not really related, except that they both deal with Federal income tax and they both have been the subject of tax protester arguments. I argue that material on section 861 does not really belong in an article on the Sixteenth Amendment. Also, Wikipedia already has an article on section 861, called Internal Revenue Code 861. Yours, Famspear 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call - Guess I wasn't thinking that one through. :-) Morphh 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tax protest material moved

Dear fellow editors: I have noticed that almost all the tax protester information in this article has been duplicated at Tax protester arguments. Therefore, I have now moved the rest of the material to the tax protester arguments article, and simply deleted it here, with a cross reference to the other article, which itself may be further broken down into separate articles soon (due to the size). Hopefully this will reduce some of the duplication in this area. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against taxation

Dear fellow editors: This particular article has a very narrow scope: an amendment to the United States Constitution that removed the requirement, if any, that taxes on income from whatever source derived -- which had already been authorized under the Constitution -- be apportioned among the states according to population. The section on "arguments against taxation" is in my view much broader and would work much better in the article on Income tax or Income tax in the United States or some other article that covers imposition of taxes in a more general way. Any thoughts? Famspear 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The section should properly focus specifically on arguments for or against the Sixteenth Amendment (i.e., this particular implementation of taxes), not the wisdom of taxes in general.--Pusher robot 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the section on Arguments against taxation to the article on Income tax in the United States. Yours, Famspear 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Murphy case

Dear editors: I have made some edits to the material introduced by another editor with respect to the Murphy case and the constitutionality of section 104(a)(2) as applied to damages received for emotional distress, etc. For some reason my PACER link to the court's opinion isn't working this morning (23 August 2006). Also, as of this morning the August 22nd Murphy decision has not yet posted on the CCH website. So, right now I am relying on the text of the opinion as linked by my fellow editor. Yours, Famspear 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the court in the Murphy case involved itself with some circumlocutory expressions that (I argue) tend to disguise the essence of the relationships among the various constitutional and statutory provisions. The constitutional question should have been posed in the form of whether the statutes were valid "as applied" not merely under the Sixteenth Amendment but rather under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment -- as we recall that the effect of the Amendment was only to remove the requirement, if any, of apportionment with respect to any particular income tax. Second, the statutory provision that defines "gross income" as a preliminary matter is section 61, not section 104(a)(2). Section 104(a)(2) "taxes" (or purports to tax) recoveries for emotional distress by negative implication. In Murphy the IRS's theory should have been that (1) all "income" (as that term is used in the Constitution as amended by the 16th Amendment) is included in "gross income" under section 61, and (2) no exclusion is carved out by 104(a)(2) for "income" from non-physical damage recoveries (i.e., because that statute excludes only recoveries related to physical damages). The government's conclusion should have been that a recovery for a non-physical emotional distress must be included in gross income when we read section 61 and section 104(a)(2) in totality. Of course, the government lost. The Murphy court arguably can be seen as having viewed a recovery for emotional distress as simply not being income at all for purposes of section 61 -- and therefore as not includible in "gross income" under section 61. Section 61, and not just section 104(a)(2), is central to the arguments in Murphy from the statutory standpoint. Yours, Famspear 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We The People Foundation Full Page Ads

Please note: the Ads run by We The People Foundation are not subject to copyright as the author's have released it into the public domain. --Jimb0b 18:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratification Process

The wikipedia article contains the claim; "The amendment was ratified by 38 states in all..." yet the information presented is not citied by any sources listed on the page. Where is the verification to this claim? I think you need to cite the actual documents of the states being represented before you can claim this. Verifiability is crucial to wikipedia!!! --Jimb0b 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the Wikipedia rules regarding Verifiability states that you have to cite the "actual documents of the states being represented," whatever that means with respect to ratification of amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, there is no specific requirement for a form of any "document." The Constitution requires only that amendments be ratified, and does not go into detail on what kind of document, if any, a state must use to execute the ratification. However, several taxpayers litigated the issue of whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified -- see Tax protester constitutional arguments -- and in every case the courts rejected arguments that the Amendment was not properly ratified. For example, in the Thomas case the court specifically stated that 38 states ratified the Amendment. Therefore, citation to Thomas added to the article. Yours, Famspear 04:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And there was already a source: the Emory University School of Law website which covers the ratification details of all the amendments. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

REVERTING PAGES WITHOUT VALID JUSTIFICATION

DO NO REVERT THE PAGE WITHOUT; VALID REASONING, DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGES!! Thank you!--Jimb0b 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fellow editors: I have moved the material added on 17 Sept 2006 regarding the "Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified" argument to the article Tax protester constitutional arguments, where it is dealt with more comprehensively. Yours, Famspear 22:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The claims were already adequately covered in that article. At a certain point, the detail becomes eye-glazing, as well as tending to give it undue weight as against the court cases debunking the arguments, which are the consensus opinion of experts. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor Robert A. West: Yeah, I agree that the amount of detail in some of the tax protester articles might be approaching critical mass. Due to the extremely marginal status of tax protester arguments, almost any coverage of them at all entails the risk of lending undue weight to them. That is a problem for Wikipedia, and finding the proper balance seems to be a never-ending challenge. I did move the material rather than merely delete it, because if it belongs anywhere (and that's an "if") it belongs in the article to which it was moved, in my view. Also, by moving the latest material rather than deleting, I do not want any editors to infer that I am endorsing the material or saying it should remain in the article to which it was moved. My position is that I and my fellow editors can deal with it more effectively at Tax protester constitutional arguments than here.

A decision apparently was made by Wikipedia editors before I became involved in Wikipedia that if this kind of stuff needs to be in Wikipedia, it should be concentrated in an article on tax protesters and not clutter up the substantive tax articles. In my view that was an excellent decision. Because of the growth of the volume of the tax protest material added to Wikipedia that all of us have witnessed during 2006, we now have several tax protester articles in various sub-categories. That, too, I think is helping editors manage the material.

Don't get me wrong -- I think tax protester arguments are fascinating, especially as the nature and structure of the arguments reveal psychological insights about the people who generate those arguments. I love to study this kinds of stuff, and to write about it. Wikipedia editors should continue to watch for the danger (created simply by reporting and repeating this kind of stuff) of conveying a false sense of importance of these kinds of arguments. I don't have a definitive answer for how much coverage is too much. Yours, Famspear 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OR removed

I removed the following statement, " Assuming 48 states in existence: Ohio represents 79% ratification. Without Ohio, representation for ratification is still 77%," on the basis that it violates the prohibition on original research. Putting together verifiable facts to create a new argument not contained in the sources, even if it is a good argument, is not acceptable in Wikipedia. So far as I can tell, the courts never raised this point, probably because they never felt they had to. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More (incorrect) original research removed

The following verbiage inserted into the article on 1 November 2006 has been moved here to the talk page:

Dissenting opinion

There is a common held misunderstanding about the Brushaber decision and the 16th Amendment. In that, the 16th Amendment did not authorize a direct tax without apportionment. This misunderstanding is due to a misinterpretation of the Brushaber case. The Court stated in the Brushaber decision:

"The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of the opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes."

"But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if accedded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned."

"The result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxng power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."

"[The] contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment...thus destroying the two great classifications [direct and indirect] which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is wholly without foundation."

"Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose [relieving direct taxes from apportionment] was intended and on the contrary shows that is was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.""

In other words, if the 16th Amendment's purpose was to remove income taxes from apportionment, that would be in conflict with Article 1, Section 8's mandate that all direct taxes must be equally apportioned. For the 16th Amendment to repeal Article 1, Section 8 the language of the amendment must have been like the 21st Amendment's repeal of the 18th Amendment:

"Amendment XXI, Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

This means that, incredibly, our current income tax is unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal!

These kinds of idiosyncratic, unsound arguments have already been covered here in Wikipedia. See Tax protester constitutional arguments, for example. Please discuss on talk page before inserting this kind of material into articles. Yours, Famspear 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: The above verbiage consisted mainly of quotations from the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. The verbiage goes astray with the following statements:

In other words, if the 16th Amendment's purpose was to remove income taxes from apportionment, that would be in conflict with Article 1, Section 8's mandate that all direct taxes must be equally apportioned. For the 16th Amendment to repeal Article 1, Section 8 the language of the amendment must have been like the 21st Amendment's repeal of the 18th Amendment [ . . . . ]

As stated elsewhere, the purpose of almost all U.S. constitutional amendments is to conflict with something in the original text, or in a prior amendment. Also, as previously stated, the 21st Amendment is the only example where an amendment uses the word "repealed." Because the U.S. legal system uses the doctrine of implied repeal for constitutional amendments, there is no legal requirement that an amendment include the words "repeal" or "repealed." Good grief.

The argument that an amendment cannot change something in the original text, or "conflict" with something in the original text, is legally frivolous. By the way, for the umpteenth time: the Court in the Brushaber case UPHELD the constitutionality of the Federal income tax!

The argument that "our current income tax is unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal" has been ruled to be without legal merit every single time a Federal court has decided the issue. The argument is legally frivolous, and has been so ruled on many occasions. Please study Tax protester constitutional arguments. Yours, Famspear 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear readers: Post-post script: The following verbiage is also misleading:

"Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose [relieving direct taxes from apportionment] was intended and on the contrary shows that is was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation."

The misleading part is the editorial addition, in brackets, of the words "relieving direct taxes from apportionment." And here's why. One very basic tax protester argument goes something like this:

Income taxes are direct taxes. According to the original text of Article I section 8, direct taxes must be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment did not change that rule, because an amendment cannot change a rule in the original text unless the amendment uses the words "repeal" or "repealed." Therefore, the current unapportioned Federal income tax is unconstitutional.

The above argument is incorrect. First, all income taxes were considered indirect taxes (excises) until the 1895 Pollock decision. Excises are not now required, nor have they ever been required, to be apportioned. The Pollock decision also recognized that, but ruled that taxes on income from certain sources, namely income from property (such as interest income, dividend income, and rental income) should really be treated as direct taxes, and should therefore be required to be apportioned.

The Sixteenth Amendment overrules the effect of Pollock by stating that Congress now has the power to impose taxes on ALL incomes from whatever source (hint: even taxes on interest income, dividend income, or rental income that were treated as direct taxes in Pollock!!!) without having to apportion the income tax, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Tax protesters are fond of pointing to language in various Supreme Court opinions that the Amendment created no new power of taxation. The tax protesters do not, however, want to accept what that statement means. The reason the Amendment created "no new" power of taxation is: Congress has always had the power to tax all incomes, under the text of the Constitution both before and after the Amendment, as the Court recognized in cases like Pollock and Brushaber. Tax protesters love to focus on the word "no" and ignore the word "new." The protesters also love to cite Article I section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment, but they ignore the actual words of those provisions as well as the actual rulings upholding the validity of income taxes in cases like Brushaber. In a case like Brushaber you have to read and understand each word in context. And, most importantly, you have to recognize which words are obiter dicta and which words convey the ratio decidendi or holdings of each case.

And, as stated above (and elsewhere in Wikipedia), the United States follows the doctrine of implied repeal. Folks, if an amendment could not change or "contradict" a rule in the original text of the Constitution without using the word "repealed," then slavery would still be constitutional and U.S. Senators would still be elected by the members of the state legislatures. Forget about law school; everyone should have been able to figure that out in that ninth grade civics or government class some of us must have slept through. The hilarious argument that the Sixteenth Amendment, without the word "repealed," cannot change something in the original text, or cannot change something in the Pollock decision, is completely without any legal merit whatsoever.

Despite the presentation of these "income taxes are unconstitutional" arguments in formal court proceedings over and over since the mid 1970s, every single Federal court that has decided these cases has upheld the validity of the Federal income taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Have a nice day! Yours, Famspear 22:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another unsourced claim added

An anonymous contributer added the following on November 142006:

The Sixteenth Amendment does not contain an enabling clause. The Ammendment [sic.] gives no powers to Congress to enforce this article.

This argument is patently absurd. The Sixteenth Amendment by its own terms grants a specific power to Congress—the power to tax incomes without apportionment. It is ridiculous to argue that an enumerated power is unenforceable because the Constitution does not enumerate a power to enforce that power. Extended logically, this would render all grants of power unenforceable—if a grant of power requires an enabling clause for it to be enforceable, then the enabling clauses themselves must require enabling clauses (and those enabling clauses must require enabling clauses, and so on, and so on), since they are grants of power themselves. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the related point is that the Sixteenth Amendment does not, strictly speaking, grant Congress the "power to tax incomes." Congress already had that power, by virtue of Article I, section 8, and the courts have so ruled over and over. What the tax protesters repeatedly miss is that the Sixteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to tax incomes without apportionment -- i.e., the Amendment removes the restriction that had been imposed by the Pollock decision -- the requirement that you look to the source of the income to try to figure out whether a given income tax was a tax on income from property (i.e., a direct tax) or not. Technically, there's no "new" power that needs to be "enabled" in the Sixteenth Amendment. The Constitution already says: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1). It does not say "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises other than income taxes." What the amendment does is remove a restriction on an existing taxing power. The language removed from the article was objectionable because it was unsourced (unverifiable) and was original research (incorrect research at that). Yours, Famspear 01:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Identification of states ratifying the Amendment

On 14 November 2006, an anonymous user at IP 156.33.137.41 made some unsourced changes to the list of states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment. I have checked the U.S. House of Representatives web site, the Emory University Law School web site, a hard copy of the U.S. Constitution as published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, and various other sources, and I have found no support for the changes made by IP 156.33.137.41. I have therefore removed the changes, and have put some of the remaining information in a footnote. Yours, Famspear 19:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See the footnote for the Sixteenth Amendment in the online version of The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation published at FindLaw's web site. That lists the ratification dates for Delaware, Wyoming, New Jersey, and Vermont. FindLaw's document is based on the 1992 Senate edition of that document (United States Senate, Doc. # 103–6, 103rd Congress, First Session, 1992). The 1992 edition is available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse1992.html; other editions are available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mateo SA: Wow, I obviously wasn't digging hard enough. I had actually reviewed that web site and missed the references! I'll make the applicable changes in the article, if it hasn't been done already. Thanks, Famspear 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Epithet versus legal terminology

An anonymous user at IP 71.137.243.178 objects to the use of the term "tax protester," asserting that the term is an "epithet."

An epithet is "a disparaging or abusive word or phrase." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (8th Ed. 1976). In the United States, "tax protester" is a legal term officially used by the courts and others to desribe persons who present legally frivolous (sorry, but that's another legal term) arguments about the validity, application, etc., of the internal revenue laws of the United States - mainly the Federal income tax laws.

The term "tax protester" has come --rightly or wrongly -- to have negative connotations in the minds of many people over the years. As previously discussed on the talk pages of Wikipedia, some people, especially some people to whom the term applies, may find the use of the term offensive. That does not mean that Wikipedia and other publications will censor themselves with respect to the use of the term tax protester or tax protester argument to describe persons or arguments to whom the term applies. See also Tax protester, Tax protester arguments, Tax protester history, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, and Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Sorry. Yours, Famspear 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your counterarguement. Unfortunately I do not believe that it is censorship to avoid unncessary usage of the term. It would quite approriate to say that individuals filing legal challenges against the 16th amendment are commonly derided and dismissed by the courts as tax protestors. It is another matter entirely to create a section heading with the term to insinuate that anyone who questions the 16th amendment is a tax protester. It is not necessary to disapprove of the income tax or paying taxes to nonetheless by interested in and concerned by possible improrieties in the ratification process as a matter of academic exercise.

While I agree that wikipedia ought not and should not censor offensive terms--even ones creating near universal disgust such as 'nigger'--it is nonetheless inappropriate to treat such labels as being in the same category of fact as other classifications that can be more universally accepted as descriptive. Opposing censorship means recognizing and describing the terms; it does not mean that we must use them. -- 71.137.243.178 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor at IP 71.137.243.178. Thanks for your thoughts. In some sense, you are correct that it is not censorship to avoid unncessary usage of a particular term. However, that's not what's happening here. The term "tax protester" is used appropriately in the article. This article has been reviewed by many Wikipedia editors over many months. You are now saying that you do not want Wikipedia to use this term in this article, on the ground that you believe it is an "epithet." You yourself are saying, in effect, that the use of this term by other Wikipedia users is not acceptable to you, and that you yourself are deleting the term. You yourself are in effect trying to censor other Wikipedia editors.

There is no valid argument that, in Wikipedia, we should or must limit the use of the term "tax protester" to describe people who promulgate tax protester arguments.

I'm sorry, but anyone who questions the legal validity of the ratification 16th amendment is raising a tax protester argument and is a tax protester in that sense. You aren't going to get around that.

Your statement: "Opposing censorship means recognizing and describing the terms; it does not mean that we must use them" is simply a rationalization for supporting your effort to delete the term "tax protester" from the article.

I reverted your latest edits, which are duplicative of material already covered at Tax protester constitutional arguments. A decision was made by Wikipedia editors, apparently before I began editing about a year ago, that these arguments would be limited to articles on tax protester arguments (sorry, but you're going to have to get used to seeing that term). Please review the articles and related talk (discussion pages). Yours, Famspear 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Benson's The Law That Never Was

At 23:28, November 192006 (UTC), an anonymous editor, 71.137.243.178, changed the text of the section Tax protester arguments regarding ratification to the following:

In 1984, Bill Benson published a book entitled The Law that Never Was detailing procedural errors in the ratification process of the 16th amendment. In short he claimed that of the 38 states that are on record as having ratified the amendment:

• Kentucky's legislature actually voted against ratification
• Oklahoma approved an amendment whose meaning was significantly at-variance with that of the actual text.
• Tennessee's legislature ratified the amendment without allowing an intervening election as required by their state constitutions
• Texas's and Lousiana's legislatures ratified the amendment despite state constitutional provisions forbiding the legislature from ratifying any amendment that enabled additional taxation at the Federal level
• Twelve other states violated state procedural requirements

These allegations were accepted as true by the Congressional Research Service. However, this line of attack had already been foiled by Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). Therein, in upholding the legality of the 19th amendment, the court rules that

• State constitutions could not enjoin state legislatures from ratifying particular amendments
• Congress had created a Conclusive Presumption in delegating to the Secretary of State the right to proclaim whether an amendment had been duly ratified. Thus, after Secretary Knox so proclaimed for the 16th amendment the issue became non-justiciable.

Others have argued that the legislatures of various states passed bills of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas). Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's year 1803 admission to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953. Therefore, they argue, the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.

Notes

Famspear then reverted the user's changes, noting in his edit summary that the page Tax protester constitutional arguments contains more detail on the the subject. Pearlg subsequently reverted to the above version, stating in his edit summary that "(restoring penultimate edit) reverting is a blunt tool and not appropriate to what appear to be good-faith changes and evolution". (Pearlg subsequently made further edits reducing the length of the section; I then made more edits reducing it even further.)

In my opinion, Pearlg's argument is basically correct, but ignores the history of this article. In the past, this article has suffered as editors have added large amounts of detail on anti-ratification arguments, to the point that the article became almost unreadable (see above). Several editors concluded that a better approach would be to address the issue in a separate article (Tax protester constitutional arguments; again, see above). Putting the arguments in that article also provides a way to address some of the POV problems introduced in edits like the one above.

I have added a comment to the section advising editors of the situation. I hope this will allow us to avoid future problems like this. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 02:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mateo, I believe that the current section mis-states Bill Benson's books. In particular, I believe his primary argument did not revolve around capitalization and spelling errors but that more substantive procedural errors took place: e.g., failure to observe requirements that the amendment be read on three different days, necessity of waiting for an intervening election prior to ratification, etc. I believe the substantance of his arguments has not been addressed directly by the courts but rather as the citation to Leser v. Garnett indicated have no traction in-court for non-obvious reasons. I think that Benson did mention that several legislatures did not agree on the spelling, punctuation even between their two houses, and glibly remarked that if you also consider spelling punctation differences between that states that only two of them properly ratified. Still I recall that he rather explicitly says that these latter issues are minor quibles. So I think it is in appropriate to write as have.

Unless you know of proof to the contrary, I think a few further sentences of restatement are needed in the current passage. I don't have the book, and it has been several years now since I read it in school. -- Pearlg 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the specific reference to Benson and added a sentence regarding the procedural violations argument. I'd like to point out that the original version of this passage did not have these problems, since it only briefly discussed the issue and referred the reader to Tax protester constitutional arguments. Once again, I would ask you to look at that article, which has a very detailed discussion of this topic.

I highly recommend that, if you feel Benson's specific arguments must be included on Wikipedia, that you move them to Tax protester constitutional arguments. But I also suggest that you discuss your additions on that page's talk page first, as many of the claims made by the anonymous editor and Benson seriously misrepresent history and the law (or provide unsourced claims, such as the one that the Congressional Research Service verified his "findings"). — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: For what it's worth, on what Benson's main arguments were or were not, I think we need to stick to Wikipedia Verifiability and stay with the consensus about the treatment of tax protester arguments -- namely, that the place to deal with this particular topic is at Tax protester constitutional arguments or at The Law That Never Was. The courts in the Thomas case and other cases have dealt with Benson's arguments over and over. It's a dead issue from a legal standpoint, and it died a long time ago. Therefore, our job here in Wikipedia is to use the primary and secondary sources, not to re-argue Benson's arguments for him or let the arguments proliferate into a third article --in this case, to the one on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is nothing more "significant" about Benson's arguments than any of the other tax protester arguments about the Sixteenth Amendment, many of which are also covered elsewhere. I would argue we should keep all the Benson & tax protester references here to a minimum, and elaborate on them if need be at Tax protester constitutional arguments. Yours, Famspear 03:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary moved from article to talk page

An anonymous user at IP 71.242.238.121 inserted the following commentary in the article:

A sufficient number of states never ratified the 16th Amendment. Check out the documentary "America" from Freedom to Fascism". Who controls "Wikipedia" anyway? It seems to be nothing but a collection of "mainstream" misunderstandings.

This is typical tax protester rhetoric. Aside from being totally incorrect, this material is unverifiable and non-neutral POV for purposes of Wikipedia, and does not belong in an article. The only "misunderstanding" in evidence here is that of the anonymous user. For more information on the substance of the commentary, see America: From Freedom to Fascism; Tax protester constitutional arguments. No one person "controls" Wikipedia. Please refer to the Wikipedia pages on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)