Comments: Movie reviews (not mine) of "America: Freedom to Fascism"

(We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)


Well, Hube, the passage of the 16th Amendment came after the 13th (how's that for a n obvious statement), so the former wuld override the latter.

Actually, the bigger question is the legitimacy of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments tehmselves, iven that the Southern states were compelled to ratify them as a condition of Reconstruction. It could therefore be argued that the compulsion rendered teh ratifications illegitimate -- which would throw our entire system of constitutional jurisprudence for the last century and a half into utter chaos!

There is also a question of an amendment that some claim was ratified but was lost to history -- what I will call the apocryphal 13th Amendment. This argument effectively debunks the claim.
http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html

Posted by Rhymes With Right at July 28, 2006 05:18 PM

I've also always wondered how being forced to sign your return doesn't violate the 5th amendment. A later amendment can override an earlier one, but the 16th only specifically allows the collection of the tax. It doesn't mention a provision forcing employers to collect it without compensation. So as far as "Not only does the 16th Amendment force you to pay a portion of your income to the national government, but it, via the the tax code, forces employers to do all the necessary paperwork and withhold the tax from their employees' paychecks for the government," some people claim that the 16th abrogates the 13th on the first part, but not the second.

At any rate, the crazier claims of some of these folks illustrate why I call myself libertarian and not Libertarian.

Posted by The Unabrewer at July 30, 2006 07:36 AM

A later amendment can override an earlier one, but the 16th only specifically allows the collection of the tax. It doesn't mention a provision forcing employers to collect it without compensation.

Exactly. And to further the point, when income tax collection was first started, all people had to do was essentially fill out a card at the end of the year w/the amount of tax owed, and send it in. Employers didn't have to do anything. But even w/that scenario, it still doesn't address Unabrewer's point about the 5th Amendment.

Posted by Hube at July 30, 2006 11:37 AM

... done yet? Section 1 of the 13th Amendment reads "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Not only does the 16th Amendment force you to pay a portion of your income to the national government, but it, via the the tax code, forces employers to do all the necessary paperwork and withhold the tax from their employees' paychecks for the government.

To illustrate a point, replace every instance of "employer" or "employee" with "African-American". The 16th came after the 13th-15th, so are those abrogated? Why is it OK to enslave an employer but not a black person? Why aren't both morally repugnant to most people? Why aren't business reimbursed for collecting the taxes in the same way that retailers are reimbursed for collecting the sales tax?

The answer to the last question, of course, is that the federal government sets the standard, and they can usually do whatever they please, constitutional or not. If the feds had to reimburse employers, they'd have to raise the tax rates in order to keep the same revenue, and John Q. Public would revolt at their higher rates. Senator Smith would promise to re-enslave employers if elected, and Mr. Public would vote him into office.

Posted by The Unabrewer at August 1, 2006 02:34 AM