Ron Paul on CNBC 2004 - UnConstitutional Income Tax

Search Tags:

Categories:

Ron Paul on CNBC 2004 - UnConstitutional Income Tax

Uploaded by: militant1776
Video Description:
Ron Paul on CNBC with former IRS agent who knows the Federal Income Tax is invalid. Great piece showing the Congressman's consistency and rationality.

Tags for this video: CNBC Constitution Income IRS Paul Protest Ron Tax

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by militant1776

Related Videos

Ron Paul On Alex Jones Show (05/31/07) AUDIO Part 1	Ron Paul on Dennis Miller part #2 (callers)	Can Ron Paul Really Win?

Ron Paul - Bad Choice For America	Chris Matthews Calls Rudy Giuliani a Liar with Joe Biden	RON PAUL REVOLUTION: A Manifesto // PART 1

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

Sigh your taking on ... ( 1 month ago by BrakBL)

Sigh your taking on the 16th would mean the constitution contradicts itself, anyway I'm 100% sure I'm correct on it, and I don't think everyone has been secretly hiding this for 100 years I think most of them just don't know and the people who are really in on it just make it harder for them to find out.
Anyway if you are to close minded to realize what the 16th really says then there's no point in me continuing, thank you for the conversation and good luck with any further research.

I don't think the ... ( 1 month ago by ColBrokov)

I don't think the constitution contradicts itself. Amendments are additions and corrections to the document. Take the 18th amendment. It allowed the abolition of alcohol, then the 21st repealed the 18th. This demonstrates that the later amendments should not be expected to conform to earlier parts of the document. All of the amendments modify the original intent in some way. I apologize, but I cannot see what the 16th amendment means if not exactly what it says.

Sorry to try to ... ( 1 month ago by ColBrokov)

Sorry to try to keep this conversation going, but it is fun and you raise too many questions. Even if there had been a conspiracy of the few to fool the American public and the government the income tax has been treated as a law so long that it has passed into common law and would require an act of congress to repeal.
Sorry but i never know when to quite.
Regardless, if you choose not to respond then allow me to thank you for a fun discussion and I sincerly hope I haven't offended you.

No, I'm not ... ( 1 month ago by BrakBL)

No, I'm not offended at all but I've given two quotes that say the 16th just restricted income tax to indirect tax;
Treasury decision 2303
And the quote from the supreme court in Peck v. Lowe.
Then I tried to break it down for you to show you how it says that, and you just stick to what you think and I just don't know where else I can take this to try to show you.

Oh one last quote I ... ( 1 month ago by BrakBL)

Oh one last quote I guess, Research by the Congressional research service in 1980 found that
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution... Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

The problem I have ... ( 1 month ago by ColBrokov)

The problem I have with these two quotes is that they are not good law. The treasury does not make law regarding the income tax and thus has nothing of value to say on the matter. Peck V Lowe was not a decision on the income tax and thus cannot be used to interpret that law.
see my above post.

I feel that your ... ( 1 month ago by ColBrokov)

I feel that your argument ignores the legal process. Congress has passed an income tax. It's modern incarnation is title 26 of the US Code. Title 26 spells it out in all its complexity. People who have failed to pay the tax (Irwin Schiff, Kent Hovind, Wesley Snipes, et al) have been arrested, pleaded their cases, and jailed. The court, in these cases, interpreted title 26 as good law. Nobody so arrested has ever been released on the basis that title 26 is unconstitutional. Out of space. see next

What you or I or ... ( 1 month ago by ColBrokov)

What you or I or the Treasury has to say about it has no effect on the law. Convictions based on the law are interpretations that it is good law. To be unconstitutional as an indirect tax the Supreme court (as they alone interpret the law) needs to find it as such. They haven't. If they felt that an egregious breach of law was being perpetrated they have the authority to intervene, as they did in 2000 Bush V Gore. They haven't. Until they so act, or congress repeals the law it, it is the law.

I brought this up ... ( 1 month ago by BrakBL)

I brought this up before but I thought I would just clarify. In the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining you brushed it off cause they did end up being taxed but they where not tax via the income tax cause the court found that it violated the 16 amendment, they where instead taxed on the property itself.
Plus do you think that these quotes from the supreme court and such just don't matter if they weren't brought up in a case, I'm pretty sure they are not lying to us.

Also I don't like ... ( 1 month ago by BrakBL)

Also I don't like arguing this by taking a standpoint from title 26 because in Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Section 1, you will find section 861 section 861 is the section you use to determine taxable income yet this section only tells you you have to pay for certain foreign and international things, yet many times courts will not let people use this section for their defenses.
So as I said I don't like arguing it from that point cause I'll just get cited that the courts don't let you.

They are not ... ( 1 month ago by ColBrokov)

They are not interpreting the income tax in those cases, thus it has no holding on the income tax. In other words it tells us nothing about how the law of the tax works or should be applied. I think it more telling that the court has not addressed the issue directly. Lots of people appeal their cases and the supreme court could hear those cases if they so wished. That they do not tells us that they feel the law was applied correctly or that they feel that they have nothing to add.

The reason the ... ( 1 month ago by ColBrokov)

The reason the court will not let people use section 861 in their defense is because it has nothing to do with domestic income tax. Domestic income tax is explained under TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, section 1.
I have said it before, Tell me you don't like it, tell me you what to change it, but don't tell me that it dosen't exist.
If you want to change it, campaign to amend the constitution. It has been done before.

I just read ... ( 1 month ago by BrakBL)

I just read subchapter A part 1 and, all of its section's and nowhere does it way what is or is not taxable income all it say's is "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of suchandsuch" So we need to look elsewhere to find that.

1. How do you pay ... ( 1 week ago by warriorprince1010)

1. How do you pay for schools, military, police, fire, hospitals, roads without taxes?
If anyone can answer me that then we will be fine.

u pay it through ... ( 1 week ago by pureadrenaline25)

u pay it through indirect taxes not direct tax like on your income this coutnry was meant for thepeople to be rich and not the government or 1 CEO torake in 100 million dollarsa every 6 months fuckin ridiculious

Tell me about these ... ( 1 week ago by warriorprince1010)

Tell me about these indirect taxes?

show me proof that ... ( 1 week ago by 5blacksky8)

show me proof that that the income tax we pay IS GOING to schools, military, police, fire, hospitals, roads to begin with. Once you do then i'll rethink about it

show me proof that ... ( 1 week ago by 5blacksky8)

show me proof that that the income tax we pay IS GOING to schools, military, police, fire, hospitals, roads to begin with. Once you do then i'll rethink about it

we did it just fine ... ( 1 week ago by wait887)

we did it just fine before an income tax exsisted.

Did we? ( 1 week ago by warriorprince1010)

Did we?

The income tax goes ... ( 1 week ago by MiLkMaN316)

The income tax goes to the debt we owe to the Federal Reserve-- a central bank which creates all of our countries money and lends it to us at interest. So in order to pay the interest we need to essentially borough more money from them to pay back our debt to them. A never ending debt cycle.

Your income tax ... ( 1 week ago by mxpx9013)

Your income tax does not go to schools and hospitals and roads and police...there are other taxes besides income tax. There are state taxes for example you pay property taxes that handle those costs for your area. Your income tax goes straight to the federal government. Have you ever noticed why you pay a state and a federal income tax. The state tax is legal.

Military spending ... ( 1 week ago by warriorprince1010)

Military spending is in the Billions and comes from income tax, how would you fund the military.

i just got my ... ( 19 hours ago by asdflkjlkj)

i just got my chatcam working!!! msn me jane24belle

Tell a friend:

WebcamSearch Videos

Video Sharing Community

Ron Paul on CNBC 2004 - UnConstitutional Income Tax

URL
Embed Code