Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
16 AMENDMENT SUIT FILED
TH
On January 18, 2001, we filed the 16th
Amendment lawsuit in Oklahoma State
Court. Bill Benson flew in from Illinois and
we had him file the suit pro se for now to
get it in the system. While in OKC, Larry
and I met with the only attorney in the
state
who
lists
himself
as
a
constitutionalist. We are hopeful that Mr.
Dell will become our local counsel.
Two major television stations showed up
for the filing.
did broadcast a
lengthy segment that night on the 10:00
evening news. A very fair broadcast. Their
reporter and camera man filmed Bill and
Larry doing the actual filing and then
interviewed Bill for a long time. It all
showed up on the news.
passed it now?" Bill piped back with: There
was a 7-year cap on the ratification of that
amendment. The states can't just come
back now and try to ratify it.
The last question the reporter ask Bill was
did he file tax returns? For those who have
never seen Bill Benson speak, well, you
have missed a rare treat. He looked that
reporter square in the eye, looked at the
camera and said hell no, he will never file
and the feds know exactly where he lives.
Bless his heart, the man is a tiger. The
reporter looked dazed.
Due to the generous donations of
countless individuals,
purchased a little over $7,000 worth of
radio advertising time and blanketed the
state about this lawsuit and the rally we
held at the capitol the next day, January
19, 2001. Those ads ran from January
This reporter wanted to know how come
10-18th and
, the biggest oldies
the Oklahoma State Legislature couldn't
station, actually gave us good plugs the
just throw together a resolution and say,
day before the rally telling folks to get
"Okay, it didn't pass in 1910, but we
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
down to the capitol for the rally! It was way
The Wallace Institute Quarterly is
cool.
an official publication of:
On the morning of January 18, 2001, we
faxed a press release to every newspaper
in the state, as well as every television
station in the state. We faxed the same
press release to 63 radio stations
throughout the state. One radio station
showed up at the capitol on the 19th for
the rally. The weather while I was there
was freezing. A big snow storm had just
arrived when I got there and things stayed
so cold, burrr. The day of the rally dawned
clear, but 28 degrees and the wind
howling.
The Wallace Institute
209 Lincoln Street
Huntsville, Alabama 35801
256-533-2535
e-mail: [email protected]
http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/
Publisher:
Devvy Kidd
Advisory Board Member
P.O. Box 60543
Sacramento, California 95860
916-928-0199
[email protected]
http://www.devvy.com
That wind chill factor made things so
miserable that our volunteers couldn't
stand outside with their signs, it was that
cold. Seeing what was coming, Larry and I
arranged for the rally to be held indoors
and the Oklahoma capitol people set
things up so nice and no charge for their
services. The front of their capitol is under Editor:
construction, so you had to walk about a Larry Becraft
half mile to get inside. Needless to say,
our high noon-2:00 rally was very poorly
Layout & Design:
attended: about 50 very enthusiastic folks
Mark Stamos
who braved absolutely frigid weather to
attend.
Notice:
Larry and Bill gave great speeches and the
lone radio station who attended taped
everything on audio.
Later that evening, we all met at a
restaurant and the local concerned citizen
group mapped out plans to lobby their
legislature and keep this issue going as
well as the ones they are working for
Oklahoma: judicial accountability being
number one. I also took the opportunity to
remind them to check their state
The Wallace Institute has sent out
complimentary copies of the 3rd & 4th
quarter newsletters to as many people as
we can reach. However, the cost of
reproduction and mailing is horrendous. If
you would like to continue receiving this
newsletter, we ask that you donate at least
$5.00 during a quarter to cover the cost of
mailing to you. In the future, orders for past
issues will require a $4.00 donation to The
Wallace Institute. We thank you for your
understanding.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
constitution for recalling elected public
servants.
By now the defendant, Mike Hunter,
Secretary of State, has been served and
the 30- day clock is ticking on their legal
time to respond. We fully expect the state
to move for a dismissal and it will be
granted. We will then take it to the
appellate court. This has always been a
case for the higher courts and the locals
say the judge we drew is, shall I say, less
than
sympathetic
to
anything
constitutional. However, we are committed
to going to the Oklahoma Supreme Court
if necessary.
Our next state will be here in California.
We anticipate the filing to be around
mid-to late March. Larry needs to see what
the state's response is going to be so he
can massage the complaint for California
if necessary. This is a common practice. I
would like to point out one more time the
meat of this suit: That the State of
Oklahoma's legislature did not properly
ratify an amendment to the constitution.
This
fraud
unlawfully
wiped
out
apportionment and that the United States
Revised Statute 205 is unconstitutional.
For those who need a little more help on
this apportionment issue, let me use an
excerpt from Vivien Kellems:
"Since a capitation means a tax of the
same amount for every person, this
provision makes doubly sure that all
federal taxes must be at the same uniform
rate for everybody. This limitation that
direct taxes be levied by the Federal
Government must be in proportion to a
census and apportioned among the States
in accordance with numbers, is the only
provision in the Constitution that is stated
twice."
The only reason that our Constitution
required a census to be taken every ten
years, the only reason was to count the
people
to
determine
how
many
Representatives should go to Congress,
and how direct taxes should be levied. I
wonder how many Americans thought of
this in 1950 when those little busybodies
came knocking on their doors, asking ten
thousand impudent, silly questions which
were none of their, or Washington's,
business. There is absolutely no power
granted in the Constitution which enables
a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed
simpletons, and worse, to invade the
privacy of the American people in such a
monstrous manner.
This census is just a preview of what is
really in store for us if they actually take
over, which they most certainly will do
unless we uproot and vote them out.
The census was to count the people - that
was all. The number of people determined
the number of Representatives in Congress
and the apportionment of direct taxes
among the states....
For a long time I asked myself, "Why were
Representatives and direct taxes linked
together and apportioned among the
States in accordance with population?" It
was understandable that Representatives
should be chosen in accordance with
numbers but why should taxes be
apportioned the same way? And then one
day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal
clear. All at once I understood the plan to
safeguard the future freedom of the
nation, conceived and executed by those
scholarly men.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
I read again: "Representatives and direct
taxes shall be included within this Union,
according to their respective numbers..."
"No capitation, or other direct tax shall be
laid, unless in proportion to the Census of
Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be
taken."
And in those two sentences our forefathers
bound fast the hands of Congress and
secured the liberty and freedom of the
American people. How? By making it
utterly impossible to levy an income tax.
others not mentioned were still not the
property of the people.
However everything in the Constitution was
arrived at by compromise. The interests
and concerns of the thirteen states varied
widely and each delegate was sent to
Philadelphia to protect the commerce,
industry and agriculture of his particular
state. It required months of patient
discussion, argument and forbearance to
finally produce the finished document,
which when completed, comprised a
system of government to protect the
people in the rights and liberties set down
in flaming words in the Declaration of
Independence. It is a wonderful document,
the best system of government ever
devised for human beings, but it could
have varied in some respects and still have
worked satisfactorily......
An income tax is certainly a direct tax,
probably the most direct tax of all since it
cannot be shifted by must be paid by the
person receiving the income. By specifying
that direct taxes must be levied in
accordance with the number of people,
not upon what they produced, as in the
days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was
supreme
achievement
of
the
simply out of the question. It cannot be The
levied upon a man but must be levied combined brains of all those men were
written into those two sentences and the
upon what he receives.
freedom and liberty of the American
Our forefathers designed and incorporated people were secured in them. For in those
in the Constitution a new system of two sentences the right of the free man to
government. It was built upon a own something was made inviolate. This
revolutionary idea; the conviction that the was his distinguishing mark, the only
government belonged to the people and criterion of freedom in all the world, the
existed only by their consent. Its genius right of the common man to retain for
lay in the careful system of checks and himself the fruit of his labor.
balances among the three departments,
the Legislative, the Executive, and the Now this is how it worked. Every man was
Judicial. And it went further and given a vote with which he could vote for
Representative.
Originally
only
maintained a balance between the powers his
of the individual States and the Federal Representatives were elected, Senators
Government. In addition it carefully were appointed by the State Legislatures
reserved to the States and to the people and it's too bad we changed that provision
all rights and powers not specifically (Note: We didn't. Like the 16th
delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a
Government and further stated that fraud--it was never ratified by the states.
because certain rights were enumerated in Therefore, we have not had a lawfully
the Constitution it did not mean that seated senate since 1913.)
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
That Representative having to stand for
election every two years was close to the
people and responsive to their wishes.
That is why he was given the power to tax;
all bills of revenue arise in the House. And
that is why he must come home every two
years and give an accounting to the
people.
But his power to levy direct taxes was
limited by an ironbound restriction: that
tax must be apportioned among the States
in Accordance with the population. Since
all taxes were to be at a uniform rate,
Congress simply could not penalize one
section of the country, or one group of
citizens for the unfair advantage of
another.
When Congress levied a tax, everybody
had to pay and at the same rate. The
amount would vary with the wealth of an
area, as it does today with the different
values of real estate, but the rate was the
same for all and the tax was distributed
among the States according to population.
The men who wrote our Constitution did
not found a democracy. They feared the
so-called "Democrats" of their day as much
as we fear the Communists today. They
did not believe in mob rule, or government
by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass.
They founded a republic and they made
certain that the right to vote should be
curbed and controlled by the necessity of
paying taxes. Scheming politicians could
not take taxes from a helpless minority
and buy themselves back into office with
the votes of the tax exempt majority. When
a Representative voted a tax, he voted to
tax everybody because the tax was based
upon numbers, not upon dollars.
This was the most brilliant plan ever
conceived for guaranteeing the freedom
of a nation. It protected every person in
his right to private property, rich and
poor alike, and under this protection we
built the richest, most powerful nation on
earth. We achieved and maintained for
the majority of our people a standard of
living undreamed of before, the hope and
the envy of the whole world.
And we accomplished something even
more important: we developed a vigorous,
self-reliant, self- respecting race of people.
An American citizen would have been
ashamed to ask for a handout from his
Government. The Government belonged to
him, he did not belong to the government.
And then what happened? We chucked our
carefully safeguarded right to own
something out the window, and we passed
the income tax amendment. Gone was our
apportionment among the States in
accordance with population, and also gone
was our principle of uniformity. Income
"from whatever source derived, without
apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or
enumeration" could be taxed and without
limit. And when we passed this income tax
amendment the slow, distilled poison of
tax slavery dripped into our veins. We
sowed the seeds of our national decay
which is rapidly coming to maturity before
our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so
carefully insured for us by our forefathers
is gone; it has been taxed away."
Miss Kellems book,
was written in 1950-51; it can be found
through rare book sellers. The full piece
may be read at:
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
http://www.devvy.com/vivien_20001031.html
Because of your generous donations, we
had a special commemorative brochure
printed up to hand out in Oklahoma City
and give to people who heard the
commercial and called my office. The
response was excellent. This little 10
page booklet is a one- time run and if
you'd like a copy (front cover attached),
please send $2.00 which will cover the
booklet, envelope, postage and about a
half dollar for the institute. The reason we
offered this little booklet to those who
heard the commercial (and they had to
spend their own dime to call my office)
was to get this information out to the
general population. It has worked even
better than I had hoped. I also squeezed in
a section about where people's "income
tax" dollars really go - that should open a
few eyes!
Geoff
Metcalf,
talk show host for
, both as a commentator
and on his daily radio show (1380 am
4:00 pm - 7:00 pm M-Fri here in No., Ca
and on the Internet, just go to
at 4:00 pm PT and you'll
be able to click on), has done an interview
with yours truly. This question and answer
interview appeared January 28, 2001 on
, ranked the #1 web site
in the world for the past 82 weeks. This
article can be found at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp
?ARTICLE_ID=21498
Geoff received an e-mail about this piece
and I've reproduced it below.
Subject: 16th Amendment Ratification in Kentucky
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: "D.M. Green" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Hi Geoff,
Thanks for your recent World Net Daily interview with Devvy Kid concerning the 16th Amendment battle. We in
Kentucky have already begun our battle by collecting signatures on petitions to force the legislature to vote on a
Resolution correcting the record concerning the ratification of the 16th Amendment in Kentucky. I've attached some
of the documents in PDF format. Our goal is to get 30,000 signatures by January in order to force the resolution
before the 2002 Legislature. We presently creating a website at www.americanpatriotism.org to get the information
out. The website should be active within the next two weeks. Also I have been told by Larry Becraft that a suit has
also been filed in Kentucky as well.
Just thought you may be interested in this info...
For Freedom,
David M. Green
Executive Director
The Institute for American Patriotism
Lexington, Kentucky
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
I did send Mr. Green the following e-mail
about his effort:
January 28, 2001
Dear Mr. Green:
Geoff forwarded me your e-mail below. I just wanted to pass on to
you a piece of information you may wish to discuss with Larry
Becraft (256-533-2535) or Bill Benson (708-596-3142). Larry is in
Washington, DC right now, but should be back by Tuesday. I
applaud your efforts, but you should know that there was a
seven-year cap on the ratification of the 16th Amendment. The
states had only seven years to ratify it or the process would have to
begin again in Congress.
As you are aware, we have already filed in the State of Oklahoma.
One relief prayed for in the complaint is for the Secretary of State to
notify the U.S. Congress that the amendment was not ratified. We
do not ask the State Legislature to put together a resolution to
correct the fraud because of the seven-year cap. The legal time
frame with which Oklahoma could go back and correct the vote has
long expired.
I am not a lawyer so it would be best to talk this over with Larry and
Bill.
We'll keep our eye on the efforts of these good people.
to be driven out of business and America
relies on foreign grown food products, the
This case was rejected by the courts and same thing that's happened with oil with
the appeal has been filed. As I stated in happen with our food supply. What better
our earlier quarterly's from last year, this way to bring a nation to its knees than to
is one of the most important lawsuits filed either withhold food or price it so high, the
over the past 50 years. All Americans people starve?
should be concerned about the situation
with our farmers, sadly most aren't. They In any event, this suit is sitting in the court
take for granted the mountains of food system right now. If we had a Congress
available at any store at any time of the that cared one iota for the U.S.
day. If our farmers and ranchers continue Constitution and the plight of the
PARITY
FOR
AGRICULTURE
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
American farmer, this problem would have
been solved a long time ago. These
Republicans have had control of Congress
for going on six years now and things have
only gotten worse. It's enough to gag a
maggot.
SSN, even though, by SSA's own
admission, no one is required to apply for
this number to live and work in the
United States. The state has requested
and been granted four extensions. Larry is
in Washington, DC as I write this and as
soon as he gets back, he will file for a
summary
judgment.
Once
that
is
completed, he will go for the same in the
other social security case, Pitmann Buck.
The state has had their chance, we now
intend to push the issue with the court.
It's very frustrating to have to wait on the
courts. Think about how our plaintiff's feel.
However, this is the nature of the beast
until the judiciaries, both state and
federal, get cleaned up. This won't happen
until the people demand it and one
excellent group. J.A.I.L. (Jail for Judges) is
leading the way. For more information on
their organization, contact:
http://www.jail4judges.org/
or Attorney Gary Zerman: (661) 259-2570
As luck would have it, here's a fine
example of citizen activism and it relates
to the national effort underway to clean up
our courts:
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles - January 27, 2001
SOCIAL SECURITY CASES
As our sponsors and readers of my site
know, we have two cases in the Texas
courts on the social security, equal
protection issue. The first case involves
the plumber who can't get a license to
practice his profession without giving an
LET'S APPLAUD GEORGIA J.A.I.L.
Those on our regular subscribers list do
not see the network of our national J.A.I.L.
leadership. Sometimes we like to lift the
curtain and allow you to peek in. Below is
such an occasion in which we wish to
share with you our successes.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
The following are the words of Army will be as thrilled as we are with Georgia
Captain Dennis M. Hatcher (Ret.), the J.A.I.L.'s accomplishments.
head of our Georgia State J.A.I.L. Chapter,
([email protected]). We trust you
Dear GA. Jailers,
In spite of last minute reservations, the [Jan. 23rd] press conference and rally
went off well, and we were able to meet 95% of our objectives! No one else from
JAIL but Kimberley Brown showed up, and she earned her weight in gold! The best
part is this: I was able to pigeon-hole Rep David Lucas like I had wanted (it was
reported he was not there, but low and behold I caught him walking down the
stairs behind me, as if God put him in my path!). I introduced myself and gave
him my J4J spiel.
I said we had to put the power of the judiciary back in the hands of the people, he
said "I don't know if we can do that, but we can't continue doing business as usual."
Guess what he did?...he invited me to speak at the next Judiciary Committee
meeting! I'm arranging it with his secretary. Kim introduced me to one of the
senior senators, Joe Burton, who came right out of chambers when Kim paged
him! We talked and he's on our side!
My short speech was taped by channel 11, FOX 5 News, GA Public Television, and
2 others I was unable to identify. I was interviewed by V103 Radio and I passed
out nearly 100 J4J cards. Many folks were impressed by my JAIL jacket sent by
Sherree from FL and they LOVED the concept of judges in jail, literally! I was
stopped 4 times inside the Capitol by people wanting to know what those letters
meant and when I told them, they were ecstatic. Each knew of someone, or
themselves, who have been victimized by the system. Dozens more watched me
and looked at the jacket. Two of the TV camera men actually walked behind me
and got shots of the big yellow J.A.I.L. logo! I'm telling you, this was an exciting
and wonderful trip. So very productive in such a short time. Kim and I stayed as
long as we could, But we were both exhausted by the time 12 noon rolled around!
I'll fill you in more later. I really have to rest now. We did good!!!
-Dennis-
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
It
involves
the
The politicians and judges in this country Michigan.
no longer fear the people. I don't mean security/driver's license issue.
violence. The people have to put the heat
on: recall or by intense public pressure
before these maggots will react. Hats off to
Dennis. How about you? Yeah, I know, it's
the time crunch. Ask me. There's a whole
lot more fish still swimming around 'cause
I didn't get my line wet one time in 2000.
If your house is on fire do you sit on the
sofa and watch TV? Of course not. You get
up, call the fire department and then get
to work with the water buckets. Well,
America - our house is on fire.
social
Future Cases:
We desperately want to file a suit on behalf
of our commercial fishing families before
they are driven off the face of the map.
This is a very critical issue involving
international treaties. The cost of such a
suit would run in the neighborhood of
$200,000. Whose industry or occupation
is next?
I will be shooting a 30-second TV
commercial in the next few weeks. We
intend to purchase commercial air time on
channels like
, the
and others whose viewing audience are
people looking to learn something. This
commercial will advertise
video and we hope it will bring in
good revenues. I have chosen two markets
that are conservative enclaves and I
believe the commercial will do well in
those areas. Buying this air time takes
money and every penny you donate is
wisely used and we appreciate it very
much.
GOOD NEWS ON SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER ISSUE
Tell me what's wrong with this picture:
One must apply for a social security
number, it is not a mandatory number
issued by the federal crime syndicate out
in DC. You must apply for this number
because it's voluntary.
However, in most states of the Union, you
cannot get a driver's license unless you
volunteer into a voluntary federal taxing
program called social security. You are
For those not on the Internet, I want you to
forced into applying for a voluntary
know about another very important lawsuit
number under a federal program, which
that was filed by the Secretary of State for
forces you to pay a voluntary tax in order
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
to get a state driver's license. In every
state in the Union, you can't even get a job
without being forced into a federal taxing
program that's voluntary. Your right to
work is a God-given right that no
government can take away, yet it's being
done every day and it must stop.
in DC. You must apply for this number
because it's voluntary.
However, in most states of the Union, you
cannot get a driver's license unless you
volunteer into a voluntary tax program
called social security. You are forced into
applying for a number to force you to pay
And you people out in America say you're a voluntary tax in order to get a state
driver's license. In every state in the Union,
free? In a pig's ear.
you can't even get a job without being
Now for the good news: The Secretary of forced into a federal taxing program that's
State for Michigan has filed a lawsuit to voluntary. Your right to work is a
stop this shotgun wedding scenario. She God-given right that no government can
has also cited the epidemic regarding take away, yet it's being done every day
identity theft that's occurring with social and it must stop.
security numbers, ruining people's lives
and turning the whole scheme into one Tom just couldn't seem to grasp the
gigantic mess. I hope you will send Ms. problem. He came back with "it's a federal
Miller an e-mail in support of her efforts issue." Well, son, it isn't, it's a state's rights
since her governor,
and
fellow issue: The Congress lacks the authority to
Republican, John Engler, is against force the states to force it's citizenry into
volunteering for a federal tax program
stopping this gross injustice.
under the politically correct excuse of
I spoke with Gov. Engler's staffer on tracking dead-beat dads or individuals will
January 5, 2001. This fellow, Tom, be refused the right to drive.
explained to me that Gov. Engler, was in
opposition to Secretary Miller's lawsuit Remember the Mack and Lopez decisions
because it would cost the state about handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court?
$900 million dollars annually in federal The court found in both cases that
funds. My response to Tom was that Congress had overstepped it's bounds and
Engler's motives were purely financial and this "dead beat dad" law is another classic
he doesn't give a rat about privacy or the case. It's as classic as will be the idiocy of
law. Tom shot right back with the reason inviting the feds into the states on how
they
want
this
number
is
to states conduct their voting and the type of
cross-reference in order to hunt down equipment they use - no, no and no.
deadbeat dads under this new federal law People had better fight this one big time.
that Billy Clinton signed.
The U.S. Constitution does not authorize
the feds into the states on this voting
issue, period. Bad, bad, news.
I outlined for Tom what I did above:
One must apply for a social security Regular readers to this site know that
currently has two social
number, it is not a mandatory number
issued by the federal crime syndicate out security cases in the Texas court system.
One deals with this dead beat dad
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
I realize that delinquent child support is a
problem. I raised my daughter from the
age of 6 on, without any and the few years
Brandy's father paid, it was a constant
battle. But, I worked and I took care of my
girl without trashing your rights along the
way. The states can figure out a way to
A grown man or woman for that matter solve the problem and Congress has no
(there are mothers who make more than authority to pass laws in this area. This is
the father and are required to pay child why we have these cases in Texas - to fight
support), who have grown children, are for everyone's rights.
forced into applying for a voluntary federal
taxation program (social security) or be Gov. Engler's boy tried to tell me that it
denied the right to drive in their state. was okay because the number (SS)
Even if they have this insidious number, wouldn't appear on the license. Big deal.
they are being forced to give it in order to The bottom line is what I outlined above
enjoy the right to drive in their state. This and it must stop. The next thing you know,
is wrong, period.
you'll be forced to use a national id card or
chip in order to buy food or other
The governor's boy, as I said, just blew necessities, but will be denied if you
this off as if it were of no consequence - refuse. We must fight this and fight hard.
it's all about federal funding, period. These We are little better than indentured
people, bureaucrats and politicians alike, servants.
have lived in their little worlds for so long,
they no longer recognize things like As a matter of fact, after I pressed this
God-given rights, the Bill of Rights or the rationale with the governor's boy, he piped
state and federal constitutions. Whatever up and said what difference does it make
is politically expedient, popular or brings to me since I am not a voter in the state of
in federal bucks, that's where their Michigan, why do I care? I told him that I
loyalty lies. This is not in keeping with the care about being free and that California
principles this nation was founded upon has done the same thing to its citizenry. I
and certainly none of them seem to told Tom that I would like for him to add
understand
the
concept
of
equal my vote to the scoreboard in support of
this lawsuit. He didn't want to talk
protection for everyone.
anymore, quite a reversal from the sweet
Contrary to the famous words of Mr. beginning of our phone conversation.
Spock in one of those Star Trek movies,
"The needs of the few outweigh the needs If you'd like to give Gov. Engler a piece of
of the many," that is not the case in our your mind, politely, have at it:
Republic: Everyone gets treated equally
http://www.migov.state.mi.us/
and the rights of even one simply cannot
be trashed to chase down child support or
any other area for the benefit of a few. I hope everyone will take a moment to call
That's how it is in a democracy (mob rule), Secretary Miller or send an e-mail to let
her know you support this lawsuit. I spoke
but we are a constitutional Republic.
malarkey. Yes, fathers who shirk their
financial responsibility should be pursued,
but not by forcing everyone in the country
to give up their rights and privacy or being
forced into volunteering into a federal tax
program. This is wrong, period.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
with one of her staffer's today, Elizabeth
Boyd. She was most interested in our
cases and I ended up e-mailing her some
information with the recommendation that
she contact Larry on Monday when he
returns to Alabama; he's in Oklahoma right
now. Our cases and this one in Michigan
are very important, so I hope you'll take
the time to give Secretary Miller your
support via an e-mail or by phone.
explained the intent of the law to identify
parents delinquent in child support
payments is commendable but that the
means did not justify the end.
"This is a law that is seriously flawed and
will do more harm in Michigan than good,"
Secretary Miller said. "The majority of
Michigan drivers are law-abiding citizens
and to require them to provide the state
with their Social Security numbers in the
http://www.sos.state.mi.us/mailwebmaster.html
limited hope that a deadbeat parent will
be identified is outrageous. I will not sit
Press Release:
idly by while residents' privacy is invaded
by an intrusive, ineffective and unfunded
From Secretary of State, Candice Miller's mandate."
office:
Secretary Miller added the federal law
http://www.sos.state.mi.us/pressrel/active/010
raises questions about its ability to protect
104-1n.html
the welfare of Michigan children. She
explained that Michigan's efforts to collect
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
delinquent child support have consistently
January 4, 2001
ranked it one of the best in the nation.
Secretary Miller Files a Lawsuit to Protect
Michigan Residents' privacy.
Contact: Elizabeth Boyd
Telephone: 517/373-2520
Radio Hotline: 517/241-2800
In 1998, for example, Michigan had the
highest total distributed collections of all
states.
The Michigan Department of State had
petitioned the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services for an exemption in
Secretary of State Candice S. Miller today
May and August 2000. The department
fought back to protect residents' privacy
submitted an addendum to the second
by filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to
request in September 2000.
block a provision of the federal Welfare
Reform Act that requires states to record
Secretary Miller argued in her exemption
residents' Social Security numbers on
requests that the collection of Social
driver license applications.
Security numbers would violate the strong
interest her department has in protecting
Secretary Miller is seeking a temporary
customer privacy. The process would be
restraining order and injunctive relief after
expensive
and
counterproductive to
recently learning her requests to obtain a
measures already in place by the state to
federal exemption were denied. She called
track those owing child support.
the federal provision an invasion of
personal privacy carrying substantial risks
which
outweigh
the
benefits.
She
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
This provision of federal law applies only
to citizens with driver licenses, which
severely limits the ability to locate
deadbeat
parents.
Consequently
in
Michigan, more than 4 million people
would
be overlooked
because the
databases
containing
records
of
suspended drivers, state identification
card holders and those on the Qualified
Voter File would be excluded from any
search.
"This
requirement
constitutes
an
unnecessary government invasion into
personal privacy," concluded Secretary
Miller. "I hope the courts agree with me."
http://www.sos.state.mi.us/pressrel/active/010
104-1n.html
updated: January 05, 2001
Printz/Mack case on the Brady Bill:
http://www.devvy.com/printz.html
If you would like to find out just how badly
Currently,
the
Michigan
Family social security cheats you, go to:
Independence Agency (FIA) conducts
searches of all Secretary of State http://www.heritage.org/news/2000/nr082100.html
databases for deadbeat parents using a
name, or even part of a name. It is
successful in obtaining an identification 90
percent of the time, according to figures
from FIA and the Secretary of State. The
Secretary of State estimates that success
rate would drop to about 60 percent under
the federal law primarily because searches
would be limited to only residents with
driver licenses.
Other problems with the federal
identified by Secretary Miller include:
law
States would not be required to verify the
Social Security numbers collected by their
Department of Motor Vehicles or Secretary
of State offices are correct.
The
law
represents
a
significant
duplication of effort because both the
Internal Revenue Service and Michigan
Department of Treasury already have
databases of Social Security numbers. The
law places the majority at risk for possible
misuse of their Social Security numbers
and identity fraud in attempts to target a
minority guilty of delinquent child support
payments.
There is only one solution to social
security: Let it die a natural death. Let
those who need to stay in the system, stay.
Eventually those in the system will pass
away, as we all do, and the entire program
will just go away. Get rid of NAFTA & GATT
and let those tariffs pay for this program they can. Stop everyone from getting into
the system - since it's voluntary to begin
with - and let it die out. Stop the insanity.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
NOW COMES the State of Michigan,
This is a Ponzi scheme that will never be
anything more than dooming the elderly Department of State, by and through its
into poverty and forcing our children to attorneys, Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney
General, and Matthew C. Keck, Assistant
support "our old age."
Attorney General, and as its Complaint
I say stop it and free our people. Stop the states as follows
political fighting and all the rest over this
mess. It can be done. It's our money, our JURISDICTION AND VENUE
lives and our decision to make about our
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this
retirement.
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331, as
Stand up and let your voice be heard. this action arises under the Constitution
so we can and the laws of the United States,
Support
including the Personal Responsibility and
continue getting these cases into court:
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 ("PRWORA"), Pub. Law No. 104-193,
http://www.devvy.com/wform2.html
110 Stat. 2105, Article I, Section 8 of the
Lawsuit filed by Secretary Miller:
United States Constitution, the Tenth
Amendment
to
the
United
States
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Constitution,
and
the
Declaratory
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201; pursuant
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF to the fact that the United States is a
STATE,
party; and pursuant to the Administrative
Plaintiff,
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702.
v
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA, 2. Venue is proper in this Judicial District
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e).
SERVICES, and DONNA E. SHALALA, in
her capacity as Secretary of the PARTIES
Department of Health and Human
Services,
3. The Plaintiff is the State of Michigan,
Defendants.
Department of State ("State of Michigan"),
one of the several States of the United
Matthew C. Keck (P60239)
States of America. The State of Michigan
Assistant Attorney General
has been injured by the unconstitutional
Attorney for Plaintiff
action of Congress in passing Section
State Affairs Division
466(a)(13)(A) of the Social Security Act
P.O. Box 30217
[42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13)(A)]. Further, the
Lansing, Michigan 48909
State of Michigan, if it is deemed by the
Defendants to have failed to comply with
(517) 373-1162
the provisions of Section 466(a)(13)(A) is
subject
to
federal
withholding
of
COMPLAINT
approximately $900 million, representing
aid to Michigan families and children in
need and causing injury to the State of
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
Michigan and its interests. Finally, the
State of Michigan has been denied an
exemption from the provisions of Section
466(a)(13)(A)
in
violation
of
the
Administrative Procedures Act.
requiring that the social security number
of-
(A) any applicant for a professional
license, commercial driver's license,
occupational license, or marriage license
4. The Defendant United States of America be recorded on the application. . . .
is an entity created and limited by the
United States Constitution.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), if a
State allows the use of a number other
5. The Defendant Department of Health than the social security number, the State
and Human Services ("DHHS") is a federal shall so advise any applicants.
agency charged with the responsibility of
implementing and enforcing the provisions 9. Title III was amended by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, Pub. Law No. 105-33,
of Section 466.
Section 5536 (1)(A), which struck the word
6. The Defendant Secretary Donna E. "commercial" so that the provision would
Shalala ("Secretary"), in her official apply to all driver's license applications.
capacity, is the duly-appointed Secretary
of Health and Human Services and is 10. While the financial cost cannot be
responsible for the agency she oversees measured exactly, the unreimbursed cost
and the approval or denial of exemption to the State of Michigan for collecting
requests. The Secretary also has the social security numbers on all driver's
discretionary authority to withhold federal license applications is estimated to be $20
funds from the State of Michigan for million.
failure to comply with the provisions of
11. The State of Michigan currently
PRWORA.
employs a database system that is more
efficient and effective than any system that
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
would use the collection of social security
7. Title III, the Child Support Enforcement numbers.
Provisions of PRWORA, Pub. Law No.
104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, became 12. Pursuant to Title I, Part A, of
effective August 22, 1996, with varying PRWORA, as codified in 42 U.S.C.
enforcement dates depending on state 602(a)(2) and 609 (a) and Title III, Part D,
legislature schedules.
as codified in 42 U.S.C. 654(20)(A), the
State of Michigan could lose over $900
8. Section 466(a) of the Social Security million if the Secretary finds that the State
Act (42 U.S.C. 666(a)) was amended by of Michigan is not in compliance with the
Section 317 of Pub. Law No. 104-193 to provisions of PRWORA and does not certify
that it is in compliance. Attachment "A" is
read:
a letter from DHHS threatening the loss of
(13) Recording of Social Security Number Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
in Certain Family Matters. Procedures ("TANF") block grant funding for failure to
comply with the provisions of PRWORA in
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
addition to the loss of approximately $20
million in "incentive" funds.
support than any other person in the
population.
13. Even if the State of Michigan does
implement the provisions of Title III with
respect to the collection of social security
numbers on driver's license applications,
the State of Michigan could lose a
substantial sum because it will make the
State
of
Michigan's
system
for
enforcement of child support less cost
effective. The State of Michigan will be
damaged because the cost effectiveness of
the State of Michigan's system for child
support enforcement is one of the factors
used to determine funding levels.
19. The collection of social security
numbers on driver's licenses applications
is not reasonably related to the collection
and enforcement of child support orders.
COUNT
I
VIOLATION
OF
CONSTITUTION SPENDING CLAUSE
U.S.
20. PRWORA controls over $900 million in
TANF block grant money and an additional
$20 million in federal grant money for
child support enforcement.
21. The requirements of PRWORA are
overly coercive of state government. The
State Legislature and its public officials
have been conscripted into service for the
federal government's program.
22. There is no effective means to obtain
14. The State of Michigan realleges an exemption to PRWORA as, upon
information and belief, only one limited
paragraphs 1 through 13.
request for an exemption has been
15. PRWORA does not define driver's granted. Hence, the statute does not
license application or suggest the contain any safety valve.
consequences of a person's failure to
II
VIOLATION
OF
TENTH
provide a social security number on an COUNT
application. There is no provision for how AMENDMENT
the collection of social security numbers is
to be used and there are no implementing 23. The State of Michigan realleges
paragraphs 1 through 22.
regulations.
16. PRWORA is so ambiguous that the 24. The Tenth Amendment to the United
State of Michigan cannot know the States Constitution provides:
consequences of its decision to participate
in the program.
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
17. There is no evidence that persons who by it to the States, are reserved to the
drive are more likely to be delinquent States respectively, or to the people.
payers of child support than any other
25. In enacting the final amendment of the
person in the population.
Bill of Rights, the framers of the
18. There is no evidence that persons who Constitution sought to create a system of
have social security numbers are more dual sovereignty whereby a power hungry
likely to be delinquent payers of child
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
national government was limited in its procedures by which a state may request
ability to control the several States.
an exemption.
26. The United States Congress has
exceeded its authority by moving beyond
its limited Spending Clause powers and
interfering with the sovereignty of the
State of Michigan.
30. According to OCSE AT-97-02, the
disapproval of an exemption request is not
subject to administrative appeal.
31. Attachment "B" is the State of
Michigan's exemption request. The request
COUNT
III
ADMINISTRATIVE was sent on August 10, 2000, and
PROCEDURES ACT
followed the procedures outlined in OCSE
AT-97-02.
27. The State of Michigan realleges
paragraphs 1 through 26.
32. Attachment "C" is a letter denying the
State of Michigan's exemption request.
28. 42 U.S.C. 666(d) provides that:
33. The denial letter (Attachment "C") is a
If a State demonstrates to the satisfaction final agency action for which there is no
of the Secretary, through the presentation other adequate remedy in a court and is
to the Secretary of such data pertaining to subject to judicial review.
caseloads,
processing
times,
administrative costs, and average support 34. The Administrative Procedures Act, as
collections, and such other data or codified at 5 U.S.C. 701-706, provides for
estimates as the Secretary may specify, judicial review of administrative decisions
that the enactment of any law or the use of and procedures. Section 702 states:
any procedure or procedures required by
or pursuant to this section will not A person suffering legal wrong because of
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of agency action, or adversely affected or
the State child support enforcement aggrieved by agency action within the
program, the Secretary may exempt the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to
State, subject to the Secretary's continuing judicial review thereof.
review and to termination of the exemption
should circumstances change, from the 35. The State of Michigan has been
requirement to enact the law or use the aggrieved by this agency action in that it is
procedure or procedures involved.
faced with the Hobson's choice of losing a
substantial amount of federal funding or
29. The Office of Child Support and spending a large sum of money for
Enforcement ("OCSE"), a division of the implementation of a law that is
Administration for Children and Families constitutionally flawed.
("ACF"), a division of DHHS has issued an
Action Transmittal regarding exemption 36. The denial of the State of Michigan's
requests. OCSE AT-97-02 establishes the exemption request is arbitrary, capricious
and an abuse of discretion.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
37. The denial of the State of Michigan's their social security number absent
exemption request is a violation of the legitimate justification.
United States and Michigan Constitutions.
47. Because of the private nature of a
38. The denial of the State of Michigan's person's social security number, each
exemption request is unwarranted by the person has a fundamental interest in
protecting his/her social security number
facts.
from unnecessary disclosure.
39. The denial of the State of Michigan's
exemption request is in excess of the 48. The State of Michigan has a
substantial interest in protecting the
Secretary's statutory authority.
fundamental rights of its citizens by
following the requirements of due process
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF STATE AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION RIGHT TO
under the 5th and 14th amendments to the
PRIVACY
United States Constitution and the due
process provisions of the Michigan
40. The State of Michigan realleges Constitution.
paragraphs 1 through 39.
49. The United States does not have an
41. Michigan was one of the first important or substantial interest in
jurisdictions to acknowledge the concept obtaining social security numbers on
of a fundamental right to privacy.
driver's license applications.
42. There is a fundamental right to privacy 50. The United States has not established
secured to the people under the Michigan a sufficiently close relationship between
and United States Constitutions.
the collection of social security numbers
on driver's license applications and the
43. A person's social security number is a collection of child support.
highly sensitive and confidential piece of
personal information.
51. Section 466(a)(13)(A) violates the
fundamental right to privacy protected by
44. The United States Code provides the
United
States
and
Michigan
numerous limits to the ability of Constitutions.
government entities and other persons to
collect and use social security numbers.
RELIEF REQUESTED
45. Social security numbers are often used
to commit various crimes of identity theft
and misappropriation.
WHEREFORE, the State of Michigan
respectfully requests that it be granted a
temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction, and permanent injunction
46. Because of the important character preventing the federal government from
and the danger of abuse of social security enforcing Section 466(a)(13)(A) against
numbers, people have a reasonable the State of Michigan or reducing the
expectation of privacy in not releasing amount of federal aid to be received by the
State of Michigan pursuant to the
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
provisions of PRWORA. Further, the State
of Michigan requests that the Secretary be
compelled to grant the State of Michigan
an exemption from the requirement that it
comply with Section 466(a)(13)(A).
the 16th Amendment lawsuit in state court
in Oklahoma City on January 18, 2001.
They also know there is no other remedy
left to the people on this issue, period. The
fraudulent ratification, which unlawfully
wiped out apportionment, is where the
trouble all began and it's roots are with the
state legislatures.
In the alternative, the State of Michigan
respectfully requests that this Court
declare Section 466(a)(13)(A) to be
unconstitutional and to award any such Below is some history from the
other relief as the Court deems equitable
, Senate, February 10,
and just.
1910. It is an interesting discussion on
this proposed 16th Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Some critters in Congress want to repeal
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
the 16th Amendment. You don't need to
Attorney General
repeal a law that doesn't exist. Some
Matthew C. Keck (P60239)
choose to sell un-taxing or de-taxing
Assistant Attorney General
programs that are a paper game with Title
State Affairs Division
26 of the Internal Revenue Code. We know
Attorney for Plaintiff
that the IRS was never created by an Act
P.O. Box 30217
of
Congress
or
any
law
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Tel: (517) 373-1162
(http://www.devvy.com/irs_20000208.ht
ml), so why bother to play games with
Dated: January 4, 2001
these people? Go for the jugular and that's
will do in about
what
S:SAD/AC/cases/MCK/2000066671A/Co
two weeks in Oklahoma City, then
mplaint
California, then a third state still to be
determined.
Both Larry and I sent Miller's office
material on equal protection. One of the The discussion below is quite interesting
pieces I sent Miller, and please for those as I'm sure you'll agree once you read it.
on the Internet, this is for those who don't One thing you'll notice throughout this
have computer access, a piece from the senate session: These senators beat the
Congressional Record back in 1910 when drum for states rights. This is 1910, three
the income tax was being discussed. This years prior to the fraudulent ratification of
piece was chock full of support for state's the 17th Amendment. These senators were
rights:
appointed by their state legislatures and
represented the interests of the states.
A LOOK BACK IN TIME (16th
With the fraudulent ratification of the 17th
AMENDMENT)
Amendment, U.S. Senators are now
"elected" and answer only to those who pay
(http://www.devvy.com/16update_20001 the most for their favors.
226.html), readers know that we will file
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
It is also important to note that while
Senator Borah is for the 16th Amendment,
he is a state's rights advocate. One really
must know the political affiliations and
equally important, the relationship and
affiliations of these senators with the great
Unseen Hand back then who conspired to
do three things following this discussion:
1913:
The VICE-PRESIDENT. With objection,
Senate resolution 175 will be laid before
the Senate.
1. Fraudulently ratify the 16th Amendment,
wiping out apportionment
Resolved, That the Committee on the
Judiciary be and is hereby, directed to
report to the Senate as part as may be
practicable whether, in the opinion of the
committee, the proposed amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, as
submitted to the States for ratification at
the special session, would, if adopted,
authorize Congress to lay a tax upon
incomes derived from state bonds and
other municipal securities or would
authorize
Congress
to
tax
the
instrumentalities or means and property of
the State or the salary of state officers.
2. Fraudulently ratify the 17th Amendment
and strip the states of their unquestioned
representation in Congress by their
legislature appointing two U.S. Senators
for each state
3. Hijack the wealth of our nation by
getting the "Federal" Reserve Act of 1913
passed.
The Secretary read the resolution
submitted by Mr. Borah on the 8th instant,
as follows:
Senate resolution 175.
If you would like to read the best written
work, fully documented on this conspiracy
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, a few weeks
to set up a central bank during this exact
is ago one of our most distinguished and
time period,
justly celebrated of public men, Governor
the book; call 503-824- 2050 to order.
Hughes, of New York, sent a message to
The other very, very interesting thing the New York legislature recommending
about this session of the senate is their against the ratification of the proposed
description of what this proposed "income amendment to the Constitution providing
tax" amendment means referencing "from for levying an income tax without
apportionment. It has been assumed by
whatever sources derived."
the public press, since the message of the
, Senate, February 10, governor, that it would be impossible, in
view of his declaration, to secure the
1910, pgs 1694-1699
enactment of the amendment. So firm a
hold has the governor of New York upon
INCOME TAX.
the public mind and so high is the esteem
in which he is held as a lawyer that it was
Mr. BORAH. I ask consent to call up
regarded as in a nature conclusive against
Senate resolution 175.
the amendment. After some considerable
consideration of the matter it occurs to me
that there are at least two sides to the
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
controversy, and, in my own opinion, the
grounds stated for the rejection are not
such as should prevail against the
amendment. The government stated in his
message as follows:
I am in favor of conferring upon the
Federal Government the power to lay and
collect
an
income
tax
without
apportionment
among
the
States
according to population * * *. But the
power to tax incomes should not be
granted in such terms as to subject to
federal taxation the incomes derived from
bonds issued by the State itself or those
issued
by
municipal
governments
organized under the State's authority * * *.
You are called upon to deal with a specific
proposal to amend the Constitution * * *.
that was urged to the language contained
in the taxing power of the National
Constitution at the time of its submission
to the thirteen States for ratification. It
was contended upon the part of those who
opposed its adoption that the language of
the National Constitution was such as to
enable the National Government to impose
a tax upon the instrumentalities and
means of state governments, to thereby
embarrass the state governments, and in
the end to practically destroy them as
independent and separate sovereignties.
The argument was based in those days
upon the plenary power which was given to
the National Government to tax, it being
contended that the language conveyed
power to tax all property of whatever kind
or from whatever source derived, and that
this would give the power to tax the
instrumentalities and means of the State.
This proposal is that the Federal
Government shall have the power to lay
When Mr. Hamilton came to answer
and collect taxes on incomes "from
that argument in his Federalist articles he
whatever source derived."
did not recede from the proposition that
The contention of the governor being full power had been given to the Federal
that if this proposed amendment should Government to tax. He stated that the
be adopted it would confer upon the power of the Federal Government to tax
Government the power to levy an income was without limit, unqualified, plenary,
tax upon incomes derived from state and and that it should be so; that it was
municipal bonds; and it would follow, intended to do so; and that that was the
although he does not so state, as a matter only reasonable construction which could
of logic and a matter of law, that it would be placed upon it. He gave his reasons in
confer the power to levy an income tax the following statement, quoting from the
upon the salaries of state officers, thirty-first number of the Federalist:
executive, judicial and legislative. In other
words, the position of the governor is that
it would confer upon the National
Government the power to tax the
instrumentalities and means of state
government, and for that reason he
opposes it.
It is curious to observe, Mr. President,
that this is precisely the same objection
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
I submit for the consideration of the
Senate, first, that this amendment, if
adopted, will add nothing to the power of
the National Government to lay and collect
taxes in the way of power; that the power
of the National Government at the present
time, as I have said, is full, complete,
As revenue is the essential engine by unlimited, and unfettered, save as to
which the means of answering the national exports from the States, which has nothing
exigencies must be procured, the power of to do with the argument here.
procuring that article in its full extent must
It is true that there are two rules with
necessarily be comprehended in that of
reference
to the manner in which the
providing for those exigencies. As theories
and practice conspire to prove that the Congress shall exercise the power - that of
power of procuring revenue is unavailing uniformity and that of apportionment - as
when exercised over the States in their to the power itself, putting aside for the
collective
capacities,
the
Federal moment the manner of its exercise, I
Government must of necessity be vested submit that the power is at the present
with an unqualified power of taxation in time vested in Congress without any
limitation, unfettered in every sense of the
the ordinary modes.
term.
I am not going to assume that the
effect of this tax would be any other than
that which Governor Hughes suggests. For
the purpose of the remarks I propose to
make today I shall assume that it would
have the effect for which it is contended
without discussing that questions.
Secondly, I invite the attention of the
Senate to the proposition that the words
"from whatever source derived" add
nothing to the force or strength of the
amendment itself. When the Constitution
says that the Congress shall have power to
lay and collect taxes, it conveys all the
The amendment which has been power that it would convey if it said "shall
have power to lay and collect taxes upon
submitted as follows:
property from whatever source derived." If
Congress shall have power to lay and we should have said in this amendment
collect taxes on incomes from whatever that Congress shall have power to lay and
source derived without apportionment collect taxes upon incomes without
among the several States and without apportionment, it would necessarily, in
constitutional
parlance,
include
all
regard to any census or enumeration.
incomes of whatever nature or from
The words upon which the governor whatever source derived.
lays stress are "from whatever source
I reason from this basis: We find in the
derived," believing them to include
Constitution
at the present time this power
incomes from the sources I have
that Congress shall have power to lay and
suggested.
collect taxes, and the court has held that it
includes taxes upon all kinds of property
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
and from whatever source it may be
derived. Therefore the adding of the words
"from whatever source derived" does not
amplify the power conferred or make it
mean any other than it would mean if the
words had been entirely omitted from the
amendment.
Third, the amendment did not deal,
does not purport to deal, and was not
intended to deal with the question of
power. It intended to deal, and does deal,
alone with the manner of exercising that
power which is already complete, that
which is already without limit. The sole
obstacle to be removed by those who
sought to change the Constitution was that
of apportionment. No one has ever
contended that it was not within the power
of Congress to lay a tax upon incomes.
That power has belonged to Congress
from its organization, under the original
taxing power of Congress. Whether
apportioned or unapportioned was a
matter of discussion, and concerning
which courts and lawyers differed; but the
power to impose an income tax upon all
property, "from whatever source derived,"
was never doubted, so far as I know, by
either court or lawyers in this country.
As a basis, therefore, of my argument
today, I desire to show that the power of
Congress to tax is at the present time
unlimited, and has been so construed;
that, so far as express provisions of the
Constitution are concerned, there is no
reason why we could not impose a tax
upon state bonds and municipal bonds or
upon the salaries of state officers at the
present time. If the governor were asked
why we do not impose a tax upon state
bonds at the present time, to what
provision of the Constitution would he
direct our attention? If the governor were
asked what limitation is there upon the
taxing power of Congress, to what
provision of the Constitution or language
therein would he direct our attention?
If the governor were asked upon what
principle the Supreme Court has held that
you can not tax the instrumentalities of the
State, to what principle would he direct
our attention? If he were asked what
change is being made by this amendment
in that principle upon which the court has
held that you can not tax the income from
state bonds, what change could he
possibly suggest?
In other words, Mr. President, the
principles upon which the Supreme Court
has held that notwithstanding the
completeness of the taxing power now in
Congress
you
can
not
tax
the
instrumentalities of a State are principles
which are imbedded in, interwoven with,
and a part of the texture of the whole
instrument, are in no sense changed by
this amendment, nor could they be by any
words which are contained in it.
The Supreme Court of the
(7 Wall.,
433) , said:
The taxing power is given in the
most comprehensive terms. The only
limitations imposed are that direct taxes,
including the capitation tax, shall be
apportioned; that duties, imposts and
excises shall be uniform, and no duty shall
be imposed upon articles exported from
any State. With these exceptions -- That is,
uniformity and apportionment and exports
from States -- the exercise of the power is
in all respects unfettered.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
It will be conceded that the question of
exports is not involved in this controversy,
and can not be. The, if we apportion an
income tax at this time, under what
prohibition or limitation of the Constitution
are we inhibited from laying it upon state
bonds? I ask that question so as to
disclose more fully as I proceed that the
reasoning is based upon principles which
are not affected by this amendment, and
which can not possibly be so, because of
the language employed.
Again, the Supreme Court said, in
(8 Wall):
In Mr. Pomeroy's work on the
Constitution, volume 1, page 188, he says:
That is the announcement by a
constitutional writer of the principle which
has been embedded in the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States from
the time the great Chief Justice Marshall
first took hold of the taxing clause and
construed it. Yea more, it has been a part
and parcel of the accepted jurisprudence
of this country since Alexander Hamilton
interpreted the Constitution in the articles
known as the "Federalist."
I ask, if today under the present taxing
clause of the Constitution we can tax all
property of whatever species, from
whatever source derived, what inhibition is
there against our taxing every state bond
of the State of New York, and the
municipal bonds of New York, at the
present time, so far as the provision of the
Constitution is concerned? Certainly no
one will contend that the present taxing
clause is not full enough to cover all
property, of whatever kind and from
whatever source derived. It has always
been so construed. If it were to be
construed alone, it would undoubtedly be
sufficient to enable us to tax state bonds.
But it can not be construed standing
alone; neither could this amendment. The
rules of construction which control this
present unlimited taxing clause would
control in the same way and for precisely
the
same
reasons
the
proposed
amendment.
In the late case of
U.S. 515) the Supreme Court said:
(173
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
Again, in
Chief Justice Marshall said:
I say, therefore, that already Congress
is given absolute power; and if the
reasoning of the distinguished governor
(4 Pet., 514) were correct, the language being full and
complete, conveying all power, we could
tax state bonds and municipal securities
and state salaries at the present time.
Mr. Hamilton, in his Report on
Manufactures, said:
But there is another controlling reason
why we can not do so, which reason is
omitted in the message and which is not
affected by this amendment in any
manner. The first time the question arose
as to power of one sovereignty to tax the
means or instrumentalities of another
sovereignty was in the case of
. In that case, as all lawyers well
remember, there was an attempt on the
part of the State of Maryland to tax the
stock of the United States Bank. The
United States Bank having been organized
as an instrumentality of the national
Government to carry out certain functions
of granted power, it was held that it was
not a taxable article. In that case Chief
Justice Marshall considered this question
and gave us the basis upon which has
been built the entire structure of law which
prevents one nationality from taxing the
instrumentalities and means of another.
In the first place, it was admitted by
the Chief Justice that there was no
provision of the Constitution which
controlled the subject matter. It was
stated by the Chief Justice that there was
neither any limitation nor grant of power
which prevented the States from taxing the
instrumentalities
of
the
National
Government, and he stated in his decision
that, therefore, the taxing power of the
National Government being complete, the
inhibition had to be found somewhere
other than that of the taxing clause itself.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
He said, In
Wheat.):
(4 was written. Those designs and purposes
were to create a national government in its
own sphere, independent and separate
and distinct from the state governments,
and to create the state sovereignties,
which in their reserved powers are
separate, distinct, and independent of the
National Government.
There is one thing that we overlook in
arguing this question, and it seems to me
to be the vice of the distinguished
governor's argument. It is that the state
governments, in their separate and
independent
sovereignties,
in
their
Upon what principle, stated a little
reserved powers, are just as much beyond
more
fully,
but
never
more
the jurisdiction and control of the National
comprehensively, did the Chief Justice
Government as the National Government
argue that you could not tax the
in its sovereignty is beyond the control and
instrumentalities of Government? Upon the
jurisdiction of the state governments.
theory that the Constitution as a whole
created two separate and distinct
In a later case, in
sovereignties independent of each other in
(18 Wall., 31), the Supreme Court
their specific and reserved powers, and
said:
that however full the grant of power of
taxation might be in the Constitution,
there must always be subtracted from that
power the
right of the
different
sovereignties to perform their functions as
such. In other words, said the Chief
Justice, to construe it otherwise would be
to rend the whole fabric into shreds.
It was not, therefore, because of the
fact that the taxing clause of the
Constitution had any limitations either
express or implied in its language, it was
not because the language failed to convey
all the power of the National Government
to tax. But because of the universal rule
that every component part of the
Constitution must be construed in the light
of every other part of it; and that it all
must be construed as a whole in the light
of the designs and purposes and objects
to be accomplished when the instrument
Again, the court in
(17 Wall., 327) said:
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
I call attention also to the following
citations and authorities, all bearing out
the same line of reasoning:
(Hare
proceedings not otherwise provided for in
this section." It was held that a tax could
not be required upon a saloon keeper's
bond required by the statutes of the State,
notwithstanding the law. The court said:
, from Mr. Story:
on the Constitution, vol. 1, p. 265).
This clause with reference to taxation is
without any express restriction except that
already referred to and explained uniformity and apportionment and exports
in the State. Despite this, it has been
decided that the United States can not tax
the salary of a state officer or a state
municipal corporation or process of state
courts or a railroad owned by a State. This
decision rests upon the strong ground that
the power of Congress--even under this full
grant as contained in the language of the
Constitution--to pass a tax law is restricted
to a law which is necessary and proper to
carry its taxing power into effect, and as
taxation of a state franchise by the Federal
Government is an infringement upon the
reserve power and autonomy of the State,
and as the power to tax with limitation is
the power to destroy, execution by the
I desire to call attention to the
United States of a power which involves
.
the total destruction of state functions was language in the case of
not only not proper, but radically This is the case where the question first
improper. (Tucker.)
arose as to the power of the national
Government to tax the instrumentalities of
The revenue act of 1898 (
the State. The case of McCulloch was a
, 100 Fed. Rep. 70) provided that a case where the State was undertaking to
stamp act of 50 cents should be imposed tax the state instrumentalities; and the
upon "all bonds of any description except argument upon which the court rests its
such as may be required in legal conclusion controls this proposition clearly
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
and distinctly in the face of any language passed a statute specifically covering the
contained in this amendment. The court salaries of all officers. Congress had
(11 Wall):
passed the act under a power in the
said in
Constitution which had been held, and was
held, and was held in that case, to be
without limitation.
We have, therefore, the lawmaking
body of the government exercising the
power conferred upon it by the
Constitution to tax property of all kinds
and from whatever sources, specifically
taxing, in so many words, the property
which was exempted by the decision of the
court, and not exempted because the
language of the Constitution failed to cover
the property, not exempted because the
court found somewhere in the language a
lack of power to put a tax upon this
particular kind of property, but exempted
for the reason, as said by the court in
practically so many words, that there must
be subtracted from this unlimited power
the right of the state government to exist
and perform its functions.
We are discussing now the question of
taxing the state means. It is admitted that
there is no express provision in the
Constitution that prohibits the General
Government from taxing the means and
instrumentalities of a State, nor is there
any prohibiting the State from taxing the
means and instrumentalities of the
Government. In both cases the exemption
rests upon necessary implication and is
upheld
by
the
great
law
of
self-preservation, as any government
whose means employed in conducting its
operations, if subject to the control of
another and distinct government, can exist
only at the mercy of that government.
That being true, when we should have
this amendment adopted what would we
have? We would have the unlimited power
of the National Government to tax still
unimpaired. We will assume that it does
convey all the power to the Government
that could be conveyed for the purpose of
taxing, nevertheless we would fall back
upon the principle enunciated in the
McCulloch case and in
,
upon the principle that it is not within the
jurisdiction of the National Government to
exercise control over the state functions or
the functions of a separate and individual
sovereignty; that unlimited power to tax
covering property or incomes from
What were the conditions under which whatever source derived will never be
this decision was rendered, and what were construed, so long as we have an
the facts? In the first place, Congress had indestructible union of indestructible
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
States, so as to embarrass or destroy each
The Internal Revenue Act of 1864 also
other. The fullest taxing power must be
construed in the light of the objects, provided that no instrument or document
designs, purposes, and schemes of the should be admitted into any court until the
requisite stamps should be affixed. The
Constitution of the whole.
term "any court" covered all courts, and it
But it seems to me that this question was quite clear that the lawmakers
has been even more definitely determined intended it to apply to all courts.
and decided. The income tax law of 1864 Notwithstanding the language of the
specifically provided for the laying of a tax statute, notwithstanding its broad and
upon salaries, also to tax incomes derived comprehensive language, it was construed
from any kind of property. The language in the light of relationship between the
was quite as broad and comprehensive as State and the National Government and it
the language of the proposed amendment was held this could not apply to state
, 97 Mass,
in which we are at present interested. The courts. (
Supreme Court held unanimously that this 457;
, 101 Mass. 243;
income tax of 1864 was constitutional,
43 N.Y. 40;
,
and it said over and over again that there 43Tenn, 325).
was positively no limitation upon the
power of the National Government to tax;
But, Mr, President, it seems to me that
that all property was subject to taxation. the question has been brought nearer to
So under this constitutional power to tax the present hour and more definitely
everything Congress passes an act presented in the famous Pollock case
specifically taxing salaries and properties itself. We remember that in the Pollock
from whatever source derived.
case the income tax law of 1894 was
involved. The statute of 1984 had
Now, if the constitutional provision was incorporated in it almost the identical
unfettered, and Congress, under this language which is found in this
unfettered power, specifically laid a tax amendment, covering property of whatever
upon salaries and incomes from whatever kind and incomes from property of
source derived, were they not in as strong whatever kind.
a position to assert the right to tax state
officers' salaries as they would be were
That law was passed upon in the light
this
amendment
passed?
Yet, of the general taxing power of Congress. It
notwithstanding this express provision of was brought to the attention of the court
Congress under this full taxing power of that included in some of the incomes was
the Constitution, it was held that you could income from state bonds. There were two
not tax the state instrumentalities. In other things upon which the court in that case
words, that while the language was were not divided. The first was that there
unequivocal and unambiguous and the was no limitation upon the power of
power was unquestioned, so far as the Congress, as contained in the clause of the
taxing provision alone was concerned, Constitution, as to what kind of property
such provision and such an act of should be taxed and what should not.
Congress must be construed in the light of
the fact that we are a dual Government.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
On the first proposition it was held that
the power was unlimited. The second
proposition was that, notwithstanding that
fact, Congress could not pass an act which
would cover the incomes derived from
state bonds or salaries of state officers. I
desire to read a quotation from both the
affirmative and the dissenting opinion. Mr.
Fuller, Chief Justice, said in the Pollock
case:
The basis of the court's opinion rested
upon the proposition that there was an
admittedly unlimited power, and under
this unlimited power Congress had passed
an act covering this specific kind of
property. It would be interesting to go
back and read the act of 1894 to observe
with what fullness the statute covers the
same kind of property which we are
seeking
here
to
tax;
and
yet,
notwithstanding the fact that the court
The power of Congress to tax is a started in on its reasoning upon the basis
very extensive power. It is given in the that there was no limit in Congress to tax,
Constitution with only one exception and and that Congress had under its full power
only two qualifications. Congress can not exercised its privilege to tax, it fell back to
, and argued
tax exports, and it must impose direct the case of
taxes by the rule of apportionment and that you could not construe a component
indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. part of the Constitution with disregard of
Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches the instrument as a whole. Without
every subject and may be exercised at repeating here what I have said, the court
discretion.
adopted and accepted to its full extent the
reasoning in the case of
,
Mr. Justice White said:
and again announced that the doctrine
must prevail that one sovereignty could
not interfere with the instrumentalities of
another.
In other words, Mr. President, when
this amendment says "from whatever
source derived," that must be a source
within the jurisdiction and taxing power of
the nationality which lays the tax.
I undertake to say, without fear of
successful
contradiction
from
the
authorities, that the National Government
has
no
more
jurisdiction
as
a
governmental fact over the functions of a
state government than it has over the
property across the line in Canada as a
territorial fact. They are not within its
power or control. Until we revise the
Constitution as a whole, take the
instrument up and revise it and definitely
announce that these separate and
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
independent sovereignties are no longer to
be so, no court will ever hold that you can
interpret the taxing clause of the
Constitution so as to destroy these
sovereignties. As Judge Nelson said in one
case:
Take this ruling of the Chief Justice,
which has been repeated in substance and
in principle so often since, put it down by
the side of the proposed amendment to
the Constitution, and construe that
amendment in the light of that principle,
that only those things over which each
sovereignty has jurisdiction and control
are subject to taxation, what possible fear
can there arise in the mind of any man
that the Supreme Court will say that out of
the words "from whatever source derived"
comes the power to do as Marshall said,
"rend the whole fabric into shreds?"
Justice Brewer in a noted case said:
These words must always be construed
in the light of these principles; that is, as
expressing authority which belongs to the
jurisdiction which undertakes to lay the
tax.
In conclusion, on this phase of the
subject, I submit:
Chief Justice Marshall, in laying down
the rule of taxation in the case to which I
have already called attention, saying in
another part of the decision:
First. That the proposed amendment
adds nothing to the taxing power of the
National Government. This power was
complete, unfettered, plenary before. It
can be no more than that should this
proposed amendment be adopted.
Second. The proposed amendment
does not deal or purport to deal with the
question of power which is already
complete, but simply with the manner and
method of exercising and using that
power.
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
Third. No one has ever questioned the
power of the National Government to lay
an income tax, for, as was said by Justice
White, the question has always been
"whether an admittedly unlimited power to
tax has been established according to the
instruction as to the method," and it was
to remedy the method alone that the
amendment was submitted.
Fourth. The words "from whatever
source" add nothing to the force of the
amendment. It would, in constitutional
parlance, be just the same if it said "to lay
and collect taxes on incomes without
apportionment," for who could then say
that you would not have the right to pay
taxes upon all incomes? The present
taxing power would not be a particle
stronger if it stated "to lay and collect
taxes upon all property from whatever
source."
Fifth. To construe the proposed
amendment so as to enable us to tax the
instrumentalities of the State would do
violence to the rules laid down by the
Supreme Court for a hundred years,
wrench the whole Constitution from its
harmonious proportions and destroy the
object and purpose for which the whole
instrument was framed.
established by the men who helped to
write it has received the approval of an
undivided court time and time again.
During that period there sat upon the
bench of the Supreme Court some of the
greatest lawyers of that or any other
period of this or any other country. During
that period wealth had not become so
domineering and so powerful and so
determined to have its own way. During
that period this Government had the power
to impose the burdens and expenses of
government upon consumption and upon
all forms of wealth, and we did so. In
1984-95
these
precedents
were
overturned.
This Constitution received a
construction unknown to its makers. In the
fact of two powerful dissenting opinions,
assented to by two other judges, the
starling and astounding doctrine was
announced that the framers of the
Republic had made it impossible to levy a
tax upon some forms of wealth even in
time of war; that the builders of this
government had made it impossible to
dispose and divide the burden of
government between consumption and the
different forms of wealth. At the last
session we were called upon to express
our assent to that interpretation of the
Constitution, by express act to declare our
acceptance of it. Under majority rule there
was submitted this amendment to cover
and eliminate that supposed hideous
defect in the fundamental law.
Sixth. To construe it to cover those
incomes
from
sources
within
the
jurisdiction and control of the sovereignty
laying the tax is to construe it in harmony
Now, Mr. President, the scheme and
with the principles given us by Marhsall
and followed from that hour to this.
plan is to defeat that amendment. Having,
as a legislative body, solemnly declared
Mr. President, the history of the our acceptance of this construction of the
income tax since 1894 has not been one Constitution, thereby making it practically
which any citizen can recite with pride. impossible to again appeal to the courts, if
For nearly one hundred years the this amendment can bow be defeated this
construction of the Constitution as Government of the people, for the people,
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
and by the people will stand alone among
all the civilized nations of the earth shorn
of the power to divide the burden of
government between consumption and the
different forms of wealth. This is the
scheme and the plan; and, unfortunately,
the great governor of New York has given
much aid and comfort to the cause by
reason of his high standards among the
people of the country.
increasing everywhere, and learn that,
after all, this entire burden must be borne
by what they eat and what they wear, and
that certain forms of wealth which breed
luxury, idleness, and idiocy go untaxed,
they will not listen to you when you are
called upon to plead with them against
radical changes in our form of government
which will be submitted to this country
within the next fifty years.
Mr. President, no one ever saw this
country in just the condition it is today.
Never since this Government was launched
has there been such a universally restless
spirit among the masses of the people,
such persistent inquiries, such ugly
questioning. No part of the Government
seems above challenge or criticism, and it
is fast becoming popular in some parts of
this country to scoff at the Constitution
itself. A restless, unquiet, dissatisfied, and
--worst of all--a suspicious public mind is
the public mind of today.
I hope, therefore, Mr. President, that
the governors of the States and
legislatures of this country will do their
duty and see that this amendment is
adopted; that they will meet this matter,
whether there is a division among them or
not as to when it should be exercised,
upon the basis that it is a power that
ought not to be taken away from the
Government.
The people should bestir themselves
upon this vital matter before it is too late.
It would be nothing less than a
You can defeat this amendment; and I catastrophe for this amendment to be
fear, from the men who are gathering to defeated, if we are, out of a false idea of
the crusade, that it will be defeated. Some courtesy, to be deprived of appealing to
of those who are proposing to encompass the court. I is the people's fight, and no
its defeat will not stop on the hither side of one should be misled by the utterly
proposition
that
this
this disreputable means to accomplish unfounded
their purpose. They are vitally involved. amendment contains the power to
But when you shall have accomplished embarrass and destroy the States and
your purpose and the people shall have "rend the whole fabric into shreds."
ascertained how their rights have been
manipulated away, it will go far toward
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I inquire if
exciting to renewed force and strength that the question is on the adoption of the
feeling of wrath and class hatred which is resolution? If so, I ask the Senator from
already too strong in this country.
Idaho [Borah] to permit his resolution to
lie on the table. I desire to address the
When those who are ill able to bear the Senate on the subject, but not this
burden of government see the expenses of afternoon.
the Government constantly increasing,
when they see the creation of larger navies
The VICE-PRESIDENT. I hope that the
and larger armies, the burden of expenses Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Brown], who
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
had the honor to offer this amendment,
will assent to the doctrine announced by
the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Borah].
Speaking for myself, I voted for that
resolution, believing what the Senator so
well expressed, and if the Senator from
Nebraska,
as
the
author
of
the
amendment, will give his approval to that
doctrine I think it will materially
strengthen our case. I hope the Senator
from Nebraska will not hesitate to express
his adherence to that doctrine.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I was not
hesitating to express my opinion upon the
subject; I was waiting for the Senator to
get through. I have a very well-defined
notion in my own mind with respect to the
amendment and with respect to the
argument to which we have just listened,
as well as with respect to the argument
from the State of New York. My own
judgment is that the words against which
complaint is lodged, "from whatever
source derived," neither add to nor take
away from the power of the Government to
reach the incomes of the country, provided
the proposed amendment is adopted. But
I further maintain, Mr. President, and I
shall do so at some length with the
indulgence of the Senate, that, without
regard to whether or not the proposed
amendment will reach the incomes of
state officers or the incomes arising from
state
securities,
nevertheless
the
amendment should be adopted.
income shall be reached may become one
of the reasons why the amendment should
be adopted.
I want to say further, before leaving the
subject, that I do not agree with my friend
from Idaho that this amendment will be
defeated. I agree with him that there is an
assault and fight being made against its
ratification and adoption, but I am not
here, as a friend of the cause, predicting
that it will be defeated. I have too much
confidence in the patriotism of the
American people to believe that they will
refuse to confer upon their Government a
power that is exercised by every civilized
nation on the face of the earth. I do not
care whether you agree to the economic
policy of taxing incomes in times of peace
or not, the American people want their
Government to have the power to protect
itself in times of trouble, and the exercise
of that power may become necessary for
the Government's preservation. I ask the
Senator to let the amendment lie on the
table.
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator has no doubt
in his mind that the state governments are
as much the Government of the American
people as the General Government?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, indeed, they are, Mr.
President.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I only want
to add that the sincere friends of the
I am not so clear, Mr. President, but income tax are not likely to favor a
that the very fact that the proposed construction of this amendment which will
amendment makes no exception of any put an argument in the mouths of its
income does not commend it to public opponents to accomplish its defeat. Of
approval. So that, conceding for the course I do not mean to intimate - for I
moment that this amendment would believed that I would not intimate it; I
confer a power to reach state securities, would say it - I do not mean to intimate
nevertheless, the fact that every man's that the Senator from Nebraska is trying to
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
aid the opponents of the income tax
amendment. I think when he takes time to
address the Senate at length he will
express practically the same views which
have been expressed by the Senator from
Idaho. I have no doubt myself--
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without
objection, the resolution will lie on the
table.
***
Of course, Mr. Brown's comments above
are pure poppycock: Patriotism and
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President -Americans protecting itself. That was not
the purpose of the 16th Amendment. Once
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the the central bank was to come into being,
Senator from Texas yield to the Senator there had to be a pipeline to feed it and
from Nebraska?
the 16th Amendment was that vessel. Mr.
Brown was shameless in his blarney.
Mr. BAILEY. Certainly.
Remember where America went shortly
after this time period: To a war Americans
Mr. BROWN. I hope the Senator did not didn't want - WWI. It was all orchestrated
understand me to express any dissent by the international banking cartel and
from the argument made by my friend the paper trail is a million pages long.
from Idaho -Additionally, the state legislatures of the
Mr. BAILEY. Oh, no; I was saying that I Union also flushed these grandiose ideas.
feel sure -As anyone who has read Bill Benson's
Mr. BROWN. But assuming that the research work,
,
point made by the governor of New York is the 16th
Amendment to the U.S.
practical; still the amendment should be Constitution, the so-called "income tax
ratified.
amendment" was never ratified by the
states of the Union and there are 17,000
Mr. BAILEY. I assume --and this was certified, notarized documents to prove it.
distinctly stated --that the Senator from Eleven states didn't even vote on it and
Nebraska will agree with the Senator from New York certainly never ratified it.
Idaho. My own opinion is that there can Oklahoma actually changed the language
not be any rational ground for dissent, and of the amendment as submitted by
I would regret very much to see any one of Washington to mean the exact opposite.
those who believed it unnecessary to
amend the Constitution, but who, There was a big uproar about the census
overwhelmed by a majority on that point, this past year. People like me refused to
finally assented to the submission of this answer all the questions except one: How
amendment, giving aid and comfort to many people live in your house? That was
those who are now arguing against its the only constitutional question on any
adoption by putting a construction upon it one of the three different census formed
that no court, in my judgment will ever mailed out. This is what the constitution
sanction.
says: Count people in the house hold in
order to determine the number of
representatives for Congress. All the other
questions were nothing more than finding
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
out how much more welfare programs
could be continued and expanded by the
federal government.
as long as the cattle out there say or do
nothing
to
challenge
these
unconstitutional intrusions, the power mad
in Washington, DC and the state
The Republicans have held the majority in legislatures will continue to turn this
Congress since January of 1995. They nation into a socialist nightmare with a
knew what this census form would say and totalitarian crack-down not far off.
they could have stopped it dead in its
tracks. But they didn't because they're I keep referring people back to the
just as guilty as the Democrats of wonderful speech by Davy Crockett:
spending what they have no authorization
http://www.devvy.com/crockett.html
to do.
***
That's about it for this quarter. I'm sorry
this was so late in getting out. I decided
rather than send it the 1st of January, I'd
wait so we could give you a detailed recap
of what happened in OKC on January 18th
& 19th. As always, I need to ask you to
please honor your commitment for a
monthly sponsorship. If everyone gives a
little, it will give us the financial support
we must have to fight for your rights. We
ask that folks be sure to donate at least
$5.00 a quarter or we can't continue to
send you a copy of these educational
newsletters with updates about our cases.
SUPPORT US
And, the icing on the cake: A full-length
movie script has been written about Bill
Conklin's 5th Amendment battles and Joe
Banister. There are three minor characters
Allegedly it is against the law not to in this movie: yours truly, Larry Becraft
answer the questions on the census forms. and Bill Benson.
is a
How come people like me haven't been great movie script. The web site is being
charged for refusing to answer all but the constructed
right
now
first question? Because the sleezy people (www.withoutdueprocess.com)
and
in Congress know that this census eventually there will be a trailer. For those
interrogation would have been shot down of you unfamiliar with a movie trailer,
in a court of law as unconstitutional. The check out the best I've ever seen:
2000 Census is nothing more than a joke www.thepatriot.com
and any claim to accuracy is a joke. But,
Volume 2, Issue1
January, 2001
Charles Welty, the author of the screenplay
and who is spearheading this very serious
effort, has done amazing things over the
past few months. The money is starting to
roll in from investors (you can be one,
too--just call Charles at 714-479-0976).
This is very serious money, a very serious
project and one heck of an exciting thing
about to happen. For those skeptics who
think this movie won't make it, let me
remind you:
was made for something like six mil and
grossed more than $200 million in six
weeks.
has the
potential to do the same.
I have been involved with this for months
now and it is truly one of the more
wonderful things to materialize in a long
time. Movies have the ability to reach
millions of people. Well acted, they can
sell the message. Because the screenplay
is based on true stories (Bill Conklin and
not only Joe Banister), it will have that much more
was in theaters across the country, it was selling power. This movie will go to video
one of four documentaries nominated for and syndication worldwide.
an Oscar in 1999. I forced myself to watch
that yearly drivel just to see the The institute needs more funding to buy
is not a those television ads I mentioned earlier
presentation.
documentary, it is a true story with lots of (which I pray will provide us with good
action packed in for entertainment value, cash flow so I don't constantly have to ask
but the real message about the IRS, etc., for donations) and to file that treaty case
will be dropped right into the lap of the for the fishing families. Please be
American people.
is carried in every generous in your contributions and we
Blockbuster Video nationwide. The Blair thank you for your support.
Witch Project movie was also an indie. It