Heirs of Liberty Press

Cut the Purse Strings of the 16th Amendment

Bob Chamberlain, Contributor

The legal consultant for "Fox News" Judge Napalitano seen recently on the Glenn Beck show on Fox has come up with what I believe is the answer to the Federal government being out of control. The Judge is advocating that: the states call for a constitutional convention in each state to rescind the Federal Income Tax law, The 16th Amendment of U.S. Constitution (which grants the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.) . When (3/4) of the states pass and ratify this law it would eliminate the Federal Income Tax law thereby taking the power away from the Federal Government the ability to raise funds and thereby return power to the people to govern and tax themselves as they see fit.

If you study history you will find that in 1909 the 16th amendment was sent to the 48 state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. Three forth's (3/4) or 36 states were required to give approval in order for the law to be ratified. This process took almost four years,of the Taft administration till 1913. The Secretary of State Philander Knox received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on Feb.25, 1913. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and and he counted 38 states as having approved it. Now the legality of this law comes into question based upon how the remaining states passed and ratified this into law, first being Kentucky. The Ky. Legislature acted on the amendment without receiving it from the governor which was to be transmitted by the governor by law to the legislature. The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax. When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Knox counted Kentucky as approving it. In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way. If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Knox, and moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that states approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

The states of Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and California violated their own state constitutions when ratifying the 16th amendment so should have been regarded as null and void. Of six states that were not counted Virginia and Pennsylvania ignored the proposed amendment, Florida, Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment. The total states approving the 16th Amendment were 20 states, not the 36 required by law.These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did Thus: "The Law That Never Was". An interesting foot note was that: The 16th Amendment was first put forth 100 years ago from an administration that was full of graft and corruption, ratified unlawfully and knowingly and kept intact by succeeding administrations. What does this say for a Congress that is top heavy with lawyers?

On Glenn Beck's show 5/1/09, "The Tea Party" show, many participants asked how they could keep the movement going and what they could do to help? My suggestion is talk to one another, friends and family, listen and watch network shows such as Glenn Beck and other Fox productions that seem to care about what Americans really feel. Get involved in organizations that support the "Constitution" like GOOOH.Com and educate yourself and others by use of the Internet. If we stand together as Americans always have, we can bring our country back and control our own destiny. thank you Judge Napolitano for pointing me in the right direction!

This article is a rebuttal to the Repeal the 16th Amendment Idea.