Have you ever heard of "The Law That Never Was", a claim that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, and what are your thoughts on it?

Not only was it not ratified, but had it been ratified, it actually created no new law(s) but was an idiotic attempt to explain old existing rules.

Courts have thwarted its proof just like they have thwarted OJ Simpson from finding the true killers.

And it hasn’t been sufficiently investigated just like “the moon is made of green cheese” claims have not been sufficiently investigated.

Sounds like he did his investigation and came up short. Just like so many before him. The government is not going to investigate itself on an issue it doesn’t want investigated. If you want to see this pursued, you must not pay your taxes and then fight it in court. Maybe get some advice from Wesley Snipes.

Not interested in that @Jaxk Just thought it was an interesting article. This is the brief submitted in 2005 which outlines his contentions. It is pretty specific and would seem to be be easy to verify. If a court had the desire that is.

And here is one on the 14th Amendment that Raggy provided in another thread. I guess this judge wants to bring slavery back

The courts have heard his arguments and dismissed them. In fact sentenced Bensen to 4 years in prison for not paying his taxes. The court not only found his argument lacking: they declared it a fraud.

On December 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Benson’s non-ratification argument constituted a “fraud perpetrated by Benson” that had “caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers’ and the IRS’ time and resources.”[

Crackpot comes to mind.

I can see why the court would say that @Jaxk but as I noted earlier another district court, while not disavowing that what he said was true, claim that Knox had investigated it and found that there was not a problem which in my opinion is asking the Fox to verify that the hen house is safe.
I still contend that, if we are following the letter of the law and what he said is true, then he is correct in what he states in his brief and the judges finding was incorrect; more a case of playing cover your governments ass then a fair and just legal opinion. And again, where are our strict constitutionalists in this matter?

I have yet to find anything that says that he is wrong. The only thing I have been able to find is that while he may be right it doesn’t matter to the courts because a precedent has been set.

But would we even want to get rid of income taxes, even if we could?

I am NOT saying we should get rid of it. I am saying that if we insist we are a nation of laws we should follow our own laws and get it right even if that means going back and re ratifying the 16th amendment

If you read Section 8 article 1 of the Constitution you will see that the founding fathers set up two ways to tax the citizens of the US.
A.) Direct Tax
B.) Indirect Tax

They must be collected accordingly or they are unconstitutional.

Income Taxes are an Indirect Tax in the way of an Excise Tax. But they are collected as though they are a Direct Tax.

^^The 16th Amendment (“The Congress shall have 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.”) does not empower the Congress to levy (or lay) taxes, only changes the way they may be levied.

And yet @Yetanotheruser since the 16th Amendment was never ratified, there have been no real changes to way they may be levied.

Benson’s argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is specious. It was developed a) as a way for him to justify his own tax evasion and b) As a way to fund his own tax evasion conviction.

You know @Yetanotheruser It seems I recently read somewhere that during the Christmas break of 1913, 3 or 4 senators convened and voted in the 16th Amendment claiming there may have been only 3 or 4 politicians present but that was enough and the vote was unanimous.

Are you beginning to see a pattern?

As for Bill Benson, perhaps you should tell the whole truth,

”On January 10, 2008, the Federal District Court in Chicago issued a permanent injunction against Bill Benson on the grounds that by offering information demonstrating that the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified, he was promoting an abusive tax shelter. The Court then refused to look at the government-certified documentary evidence, deciding instead that the facts necessary to prove his statements true were irrelevant.””