[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Contumacious HUH? May I suggest that you lay "Mein Kempf" down long enough to read :

Godwin's Law: As an internet debate progresses, the likelihood that someone will make a comparison to Hitler or the Holocaust approaches one.

Congratulations, you just reproved the law... Proud? :rolleyes:

The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment Volume 2 Edited by Atty. Randy E. Barnett You will then see that the natural rights identified by the Hon Thomas Jefferson were incorporated into the 9th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment is law. The Declaration of Independence is not.

Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment does not say that the government cannot add amendments which might add to the government's power. All the 9th says is that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not an exhaustive list.

Quote by: Contumacious The purpose of creating a government is to secure our rights to life, liberty, property and to the pursuit of happiness.

I absolutely agree.

Obviously if I have a right to property , and to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures, and the government contends that they have a right to enter my property to see if I am cultivating marihuana and or opium then they are clearly transgressing upon my right even if the nine bureaucrats who sit on the so-called supreme court state otherwise.:rolleyes:

You're not understanding the argument. If we added an amendment to the Constitution saying no one can wear a blue hat, it would be law. Would it be stupid? Yes. Would it ever pass? Hopefully not while anyone is in their right mind.

But would it be Constitutional? If it was duly ratified, YES. Anything that is in the Constitution is Constitutional. That is all I am saying. I'm not here to make judgment calls

Quote by: Autolykos Tivo Dan, as a law student, can you point me to the law that requires income-earning Americans to pay income taxes? Thanks. - Rob

Sigh... Of course.

The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:

26 U.S.C. § 1

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

followed by a table specifying the tax rates on various income amounts. If you are married, you are covered by the similar provision at § 1(a). There are also a couple of other possible filing statuses covered elsewhere in § 1 (such as “head of household”), but the basic point is that section 1 imposes an income tax.

Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition:

26 U.S.C. § 61

[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;

... (down through a list of a million more things that are included in "gross income")

The amazing thing is, despite the vast complexity of our tax code, those sections are easy enough to understand.

Your argument is so tired and silly that making it in federal court will get you a $5000 fine. I know, I know, EVERY federal judge, lawyer, court clerk, stenographer, and bailiff is "part of the conspiracy" to keep this totally illegal tax system afloat, right? :rolleyes: