Timeline for Are US workers legally required to pay income taxes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2018 at 15:58 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @RDFozz That was one version of it. Another version is that a few states approved an amendment with slightly different language that, arguably, significantly changed the meaning. Some versions of these arguments are good arguments that might have worked had they had a chance to be made back in the day, but back in the day, the Secretary of State's declaration was considered conclusive. At least those means of dismissing those claims would be considered unconstitutional today as violating the right to due process. | |
| Nov 2, 2018 at 15:54 | comment | added | RDFozz | @DavidSchwartz - If this is the argument I think it is, it has something to do with Ohio not really being a legitimate state, due to some technicality. Presumably, that would dip the total below the requirement. Note that I'm not defending the argument.... | |
| Nov 1, 2018 at 21:02 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @T.E.D. "So anyone coming up with some argument why the law is something different than the courts say it is might as well be writing science fiction." Except that fiction is often entertaining. Batshit insane assertions about US tax law... less so. | |
| Nov 1, 2018 at 12:05 | comment | added | reirab | @T.E.D. "So anyone coming up with some argument why the law is something different than the courts say it is might as well be writing science fiction." Or writing a new law, an amendment, or a court briefing. Court decisions do get overturned regularly, either by other court decisions or by changing the laws via legislation. It would be more correct to say, "The law is what the original intent of the authors of the law meant it to be, but is currently enforced as the courts say." | |
| Nov 1, 2018 at 0:49 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @prosfilaes Well, it's not the Secretary of State anymore. The law on conclusive presumptions has changed a lot since then but nobody can reliably say what would have happened had there been a truly exceptional case earlier. | |
| Nov 1, 2018 at 0:17 | comment | added | prosfilaes | @DavidSchwartz That the Secretary of State's powers in this regard are substantially different then as opposed to now. The Supreme Court has refused to review Congressional impeachments, so it seems likely they'd refuse to review an executive processing of an amendment. Likewise, that the Secretary at the time declaring that some amendment had passed that hadn't even been through Congress wouldn't have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, if necessary. | |
| Nov 1, 2018 at 0:05 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @prosfilaes I'm not sure what you want a citation for. It sounds like everything you've said 100% agrees with what I've said. Do you mean a citation for that process being unconstitutional today? There's a line of Supreme Court cases holding that irrefutable presumptions violate due process and that this rule was an irrefutable presumption of validity. | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 23:59 | comment | added | prosfilaes | @DavidSchwartz Can you offer a citation for that? According to Wikipedia, the 16th Amendment was ratified by a sufficient number of states--40, which is at least 75% of 48--before the Secretary of State ratified it. The courts might have taken up a challenge at the time, and a flat declaration without actual amendment would have been ignored; the problem is now it's established law and any quibbles about how it was amended are just that. | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 20:03 | comment | added | anon | @paulj It's not even just that the courts have unilateral power to jail or execute you for disobeying (because in the US they... don't). It's that part of the law -- at least in practice, if not as written -- is that "precedents" can be set, and once set, they should be followed by any similar cases. So once the first judge decided e.g. that "includes" doesn't mean "includes only", every judge will rule that way, barring mistakes or substantially different context. | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 18:46 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @rogerdpack At the time the 16th amendment was declared ratified, a statement by the Secretary of State that an amendment passed was legally sufficient to bring it into effect. Philander Knox, then Secretary of State, made such a statement. Courts have consistently held that it is way too late to challenge the constitutionality of the operation of such a conclusive presumption in the past; however, that process would certainly be considered unconstitutional today. (Imagine if Mike Pompeo simply declared that the 1st amendment had bee repealed and that his declaration was sufficient.) | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 17:30 | comment | added | rogerdpack | I once heard a rumor the 16th amendment wasn't ratified by enough states... :) | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 15:56 | comment | added | JMac | @T.E.D. That reminds me of the "Sovereign Citizen" (and related) movements. They can make up as many convoluted arguments as they want; but that doesn't mean the court has to try to follow their nonsense. | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 14:11 | comment | added | paulj | @T.E.D. This! Power trumps all. There were courts and judges and laws in fascist Germany, as well as communist Soviet Union, and current China. What "law" allowed Soviet Union to murder millions of their own citizens (Russian included), or suppress Hungarian uprising. Their law, with their power, and their chain of obedience. | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 13:47 | comment | added | T.E.D. | An important meta point here is that effectively the law is what the courts say it is. You can't change reality with rhetoric and logical tricks. So anyone coming up with some argument why the law is something different than the courts say it is might as well be writing science fiction. | |
| Oct 31, 2018 at 9:45 | history | edited | Paul Johnson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link to Prof. Siegel's pages on the subject.
|
| Oct 31, 2018 at 8:08 | history | answered | Paul Johnson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |