Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Happy Anniversary to the XXIIII Amendment.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277

    Happy Anniversary to the XXIIII Amendment.

    Forty two years ago today, the XXIIII amendment to the Constitution was ratified and Poll Taxes in Federal Elections were abolished and ruled unconstitutional..

    Now if we could only have the XVI amendment (directed tax abolished).. That would be something to celebrate.

    While this topic is not a RKBA issue, I felt it needed mentioning.

    My .02
    Regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    The right to vote hypothesized.

    "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

    I find it amusing that so much angst is shed over the archaic/moot/mute prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, but when a similar clause is used in contemporary construction then it is completely ignored.

    Oh, bye-the-bye, look at the word with no vowels - ANGST! Never noticed that before.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ...Oh, bye-the-bye, look at the word with no vowels - ANGST! Never noticed that before.
    You mean other than the vowel it starts with?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You mean other than the vowel it starts with?
    That was for y'all grammar-nazis to catch. Thanks for reading.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    (sigh)

    Trust government to lie.

    It cannot possibly be a right to vote. Permit me to explain.

    Insofar as I would be voting to inflict government on other human beings--to authorize "my" representative to make and enforce laws on other human beings--it must necessarily be a power to vote.

    Look carefully. Very carefully. Notice that as soon as I get voting accepted as a right, there is little inspection thereafter. Its a right, right? So, what's left to inspect? What's left to consider? "Its a right, dammit!"

    But, if its a power, suddenly we want to be a bit more careful before agreeing that it exists legitimately. Now we want to consider it a bit more carefully out of concern for our fellow man. Do I have the power to inflict government on another equal without his express individual consent? Where do I get that power? What are the limits of that power? Do they exceed my property rights? Does my power to vote exceed my right to be free of fraud and crime? Do I really have the power to delegate others to create and enforce just any law I feel like on other human beings? Do I have the power to delegate to others who thereafter are very hard for me to control? Can I really unleash that on other human beings, knowing in advance that I will be almost unable to control after the election those people for whom I voted?

    From a historical perspective, voting was once argued as a right. "If I am to be ruled, then I have a right to have some say in who is ruling me." We long ago passed the point where voting shifted from being a way to inhibit government and taxes to a way to inflict ideology and "social progress" on others.

    A fella has a simple, core question to ask himself, "From where do I get the power to inflict government on another equal without his express individual consent?"
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-24-2016 at 12:09 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    Twenty-Four is written as XXIV in Roman Numerals.

    Amendment XXIV
    Section 1.
    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Shovelhead View Post
    Twenty-Four is written as XXIV in Roman Numerals.
    I stand corrected, you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out, I haven't used Roman Numerals in about
    XXX decades..

    Regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Shovelhead View Post
    Twenty-Four is written as XXIV in Roman Numerals.
    Only in modern usage is the subtractive form shown any preference. Roman inscriptions, especially in official contexts, show a preference for additive forms such as IIII and VIIII instead of subtractive forms. Post-modern pedantry at its narrowest.

    See the date on the Admiralty Arch MDCCCCX

    http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationP...of TripAdvisor
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-23-2016 at 07:45 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Forty two years ago today, the XXIIII amendment to the Constitution was ratified and Poll Taxes in Federal Elections were abolished and ruled unconstitutional..

    Now if we could only have the XVI amendment (directed tax abolished).. That would be something to celebrate.

    While this topic is not a RKBA issue, I felt it needed mentioning.

    My .02
    Regards
    CCJ
    Amendment 16 confered no new powers of taxation and is thus not a direct tax.

    It is a tax on the SOURCE of incomes. It is not on the INCOME itself. Unless you failed basic English and logic.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Amendment 16 confered no new powers of taxation and is thus not a direct tax.

    It is a tax on the SOURCE of incomes. It is not on the INCOME itself. Unless you failed basic English and logic.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    No I did not fail basic English and logic,,, There is nothing logical about the 16th A

    The 16th A made it clear that income taxes were constitutional when levied on individuals, without being apportioned among the states, During the civil war, congress had instituted an income tax, and the Supreme court upheld it. But in Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The court ruled that the income tax was a DIRECT TAX, which meant that under Article I it could not be levied as a uniform rate but instead had to be apportioned among the states.. Such a complicated formula would be difficult to administer, so congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment in 1909 and it was ratified in 1913...

    Unless I can't understand the text, the court ruled that income tax was a Direct Tax...

    When you make these broad assumptions and comments. kindly cite where you derive your information...
    I believe my cite stands on its merit, via the Supreme Court ruling in the case I cited..

    Regards
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    No I did not fail basic English and logic,,, There is nothing logical about the 16th A

    The 16th A made it clear that income taxes were constitutional when levied on individuals, without being apportioned among the states, During the civil war, congress had instituted an income tax, and the Supreme court upheld it. But in Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The court ruled that the income tax was a DIRECT TAX, which meant that under Article I it could not be levied as a uniform rate but instead had to be apportioned among the states.. Such a complicated formula would be difficult to administer, so congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment in 1909 and it was ratified in 1913...

    Unless I can't understand the text, the court ruled that income tax was a Direct Tax...

    When you make these broad assumptions and comments. kindly cite where you derive your information...
    I believe my cite stands on its merit, via the Supreme Court ruling in the case I cited..

    Regards
    CCJ
    You seem to have failed reading comprehension then.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/derived%20?s=t
    Amendment 16 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
    So it keeps firm that this is an excise tax on corporate profits. It is a tax on the privilege of non-resident aliens and foreign corporations doing business in this union of states (really just Washington DC). It is also a tax on foreign sourced income.

    Hence the ruling, "the sixteenth amendment confers no new powers of taxation."
    Eisner vs Macomber 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920). "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."
    Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co 240 U.S. 1 at 10-11 (1916).
    It states "The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be the subject of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, ..."
    If you believe that I am mistaken, then cite the law proving it.

    Also a river is not water, a well is not water, a lake is not water. They can all be sources of water. Wages can be a source of income wages are not income themselves.

    I did include a link to the definition of derived. I hope it helps you.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Shovelhead View Post
    Twenty-Four is written as XXIV in Roman Numerals.
    I prefer:

    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

    LOL

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Only in modern usage is the subtractive form shown any preference. Roman inscriptions, especially in official contexts, show a preference for additive forms such as IIII and VIIII instead of subtractive forms. Post-modern pedantry at its narrowest.

    See the date on the Admiralty Arch MDCCCCX

    http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationP...of TripAdvisor
    Well, I'm just glad Warner Bros cartoons of the 1940's thru early 1960's used the subtractive form--otherwise I'd never have learned to read the subtractive form.

    I mean really, how else is a kid supposed to figure out whether his favorite Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam cartoon was made in 1958 or 1959 or 1960? MCMLVIII or MCMLIX or MCMLX? Geez, you could miss half the next cartoon figuring it out if you were not on the ball.

    Oh, I was taught the basics in elementary school, but it was the cartoons that developed reading Roman numerals into skill.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-24-2016 at 12:18 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    ...I haven't used Roman Numerals in about XXX decades...
    You're CCC+ years old?

    As for the subtractive form, I always wondered why I see XLIX, instead of IL. If you can subtract I from V and X, why not from the others? Is it still Romanically correct, but not customary?
    Last edited by MAC702; 01-24-2016 at 12:54 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You're CCC+ years old?

    As for the subtractive form, I always wondered why I see XLIX, instead of IL. If you can subtract I from V and X, why not from the others? Is it still Romanically correct, but not customary?
    The stone cutters probably would have appreciated it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The stone cutters probably would have appreciated it.
    Maybe it was hourly pay and they had a good mob union.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Forty two years ago today, the XXIIII amendment to the Constitution was ratified and Poll Taxes in Federal Elections were abolished and ruled unconstitutional..

    Now if we could only have the XVI amendment (directed tax abolished).. That would be something to celebrate.
    I fully agree with you on abolishing the 16th amendment. I'd add the 17th to the short list to abolish.

    I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the desirability of the 24th amendment. No doubt the racist use of poll taxes to disenfranchise blacks was highly offensive. Ditto the similar use of "literacy" tests of the same era.

    But what a horrible price we continue to pay for the racism of the prior generations.

    At the end of the day, one of the most common duties of elected representatives (and of direct popular elections via citizen initiatives) is to determine how tax money is going to be spent. And with the 24th amendment in place, perfectly reasonable, logical limitations on who gets to help make those decisions are not permissible.

    We have large numbers of Indians living on Reservations here in the West. They are not subject to local taxation, but are generally eligible to vote in local elections. No prizes for guesses how such persons vote in virtually ever bond election. They get to enjoy whatever new public facility is funded via the property taxes to pay the bond, while being under zero obligation to pay the taxes.

    A very similar situation is common in college towns where large numbers of de facto non-residents are free to engage in the charity-with-others'-money of youth, with very little likelihood such generous voters will be sticking around to ever pay taxes toward the long term debt obligation they helped incur.

    More subtle is the issue of those living on the dole being fully empowered to vote for those who promise them continued access to others' money via taxation.

    On the flip side, many property owners are not permitted to vote in elections simply because they do not reside where their property is located. Consider the landlord with an apartment complex, or even a townhome. His tenants--who are residents of the city/county/State--are free to vote to increase his taxes, but he--who may live in a different jurisdiction--is not able to vote against tax increases.

    Any anyone who can't pass a basic civics test has no business presuming to help make any decisions about laws, taxes, or spending.

    Given the racist past of both poll taxes and literacy tests, we'd probably never be able to see them implemented again regardless of constitutional language. But this is a fact to be mourned, not celebrated, IMO.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I fully agree with you on abolishing the 16th amendment. I'd add the 17th to the short list to abolish.

    I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the desirability of the 24th amendment. No doubt the racist use of poll taxes to disenfranchise blacks was highly offensive. Ditto the similar use of "literacy" tests of the same era.

    But what a horrible price we continue to pay for the racism of the prior generations.

    At the end of the day, one of the most common duties of elected representatives (and of direct popular elections via citizen initiatives) is to determine how tax money is going to be spent. And with the 24th amendment in place, perfectly reasonable, logical limitations on who gets to help make those decisions are not permissible.

    We have large numbers of Indians living on Reservations here in the West. They are not subject to local taxation, but are generally eligible to vote in local elections. No prizes for guesses how such persons vote in virtually ever bond election. They get to enjoy whatever new public facility is funded via the property taxes to pay the bond, while being under zero obligation to pay the taxes.

    A very similar situation is common in college towns where large numbers of de facto non-residents are free to engage in the charity-with-others'-money of youth, with very little likelihood such generous voters will be sticking around to ever pay taxes toward the long term debt obligation they helped incur.

    More subtle is the issue of those living on the dole being fully empowered to vote for those who promise them continued access to others' money via taxation.

    On the flip side, many property owners are not permitted to vote in elections simply because they do not reside where their property is located. Consider the landlord with an apartment complex, or even a townhome. His tenants--who are residents of the city/county/State--are free to vote to increase his taxes, but he--who may live in a different jurisdiction--is not able to vote against tax increases.

    Any anyone who can't pass a basic civics test has no business presuming to help make any decisions about laws, taxes, or spending.

    Given the racist past of both poll taxes and literacy tests, we'd probably never be able to see them implemented again regardless of constitutional language. But this is a fact to be mourned, not celebrated, IMO.

    Charles
    Why cannot I vote in every state? I pay sales taxes in almost every state I visit. Taxation w/o representation, right?

    Or why an I being required to pay sales tax in other states (and other taxes) ?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Why cannot I vote in every state? I pay sales taxes in almost every state I visit. Taxation w/o representation, right?

    Or why an I being required to pay sales tax in other states (and other taxes) ?
    Cite. I know that Washington lists it as a "use tax" and it is not listed in the law as a sales tax.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Cite. I know that Washington lists it as a "use tax" and it is not listed in the law as a sales tax.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    <chuckle> Not to get between you and McBeth. Its just that you just reminded me that Obamacare is not a tax but is a penalty but is a tax.

    Years ago, after some months working in a northern state, I got a tax bill. Ten dollars. The name of the tax? Employment privilege tax. Yep. I had to pay a tax for the "privilege" of having a job. Of course, since I had a job, I was then able to pay lots of other taxes, too. So, really, it boiled down to paying a tax on my ability to pay taxes.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    <chuckle> Not to get between you and McBeth. Its just that you just reminded me that Obamacare is not a tax but is a penalty but is a tax.

    Years ago, after some months working in a northern state, I got a tax bill. Ten dollars. The name of the tax? Employment privilege tax. Yep. I had to pay a tax for the "privilege" of having a job. Of course, since I had a job, I was then able to pay lots of other taxes, too. So, really, it boiled down to paying a tax on my ability to pay taxes.
    I had found a case once, the courts had ruled that you have a right to earn a living. Or something to that effect. In short the state could not tax him for working.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •