this is what our differences are coming down to.
the constitution originally had outlined that the government has the authority to impose indirect taxes, while it was left up to the census of the states as to whether or not a direct tax was to be collected from its inhabitants. orginally, the federal government did not have the power to impose an income tax.
So you would go back to the way the constitution was originally written? There are numerous things in the constitution that weren't in it to begin with. The fact remains that income tax was never found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court.
i do realize that the 16th amendment vaguely gives congress the authority to collect new taxes, however, this amendment is an abomination to the economic powers originally intended by the constitution's founding fathers, resulting in the establishment of the federal reserve, which is an unconstitutional entity.
The Supreme Court (who knows infinitely more than you) has consistently found that the Federal Reserve is constitutional under Article 1 section 8 clause 18 of the constitution. You might (who am I kidding you probably don't) know this as the necessary and proper clause. Please find where the fed was declared unconstitutional.
as stated before, one of the main communist/socialist economic principles was the establishment of a centralized bank. the income tax is a result of this power hungry banking takeover. as long as the federal reserve exists, we will forever be indebted to them. that makes a ton of sense.
I thought we were talking about income tax. The Federal Reserve is an entirely different story. Are you trying to change the subject?
and sorry, i don't consider the IRS codes to be the law.
This has to be one of the dumbest things you have said so far in this thread. What in the hell do you mean you don't consider it to be law? And it isn't "IRS Codes" because the IRS didn't create, write, or enact it. Congress wrote it, congress passed it, and the president signed it. It is Section 26 of the United States Code. They named it the Internal Revenue Code, but that doesn't mean it was created by the Internal Revenue Service. If you're going to just start not considering actual laws in the UNITED STATES CODE to be law, then why stop there? Why don't you just say "fug it" to all laws? You can't just pick and choose what laws you consider to be laws based on what Ron Paul says in his monthly newsletter.