| Defects
in Ratification of the 16th Amendment
The
Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never
ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.
This
is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent
(government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their
private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax"
as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.
After
an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign
states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until
after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed
was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on
February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "ineffect",
but never stating it was lawfully ratified.
Even
if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article
1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional
for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People
in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the
U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed
the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber
v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it
"created no new power of taxation" and that it "did
not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct
taxation of individuals".
Alleged
defects in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment
After investigating the history of
the 16th Amendment, the following defects were found in the ratification
of the Income Tax Amendment by the 48 states then existing, three-fourths
or 36 of which were needed to ratify it:
| 01 - Not ratified by state legislature,
and so reported |
| 02 - Not ratified by state legislature,
but reported as ratified |
| 03 - Missing or incomplete evidence of
ratification, but reported as ratified |
04 - Failure of Governor or other official
to sign, although required by State Constitution |
| 05 - Other violation of State Constitution
in ratification process |
| 06 - Other procedural irregularity making
ratification doubtful |
| 07 - Approval, but with change in wording,
accepted as ratification of original version |
| 08 - Approval, but with change in spelling,
accepted as ratification of original version |
09 - Approval, but with change in capitalization,
accepted as ratification of original version |
| 10 - Approval, but with change in punctuation,
accepted as ratification of original version |
| State |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
| Alabama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Arizona |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
| Arkansas |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| California |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Colorado |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
| Connecticut |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Delaware |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Florida |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Georgia |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Idaho |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Illinois |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
| Indiana |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
| Iowa |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
| Kansas |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
| Kentucky |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Louisiana |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
| Maine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
| Maryland |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
| Massachusetts |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
| Michigan |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Minnesota |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
| Mississippi |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Missouri |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
| Montana |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
| Nebraska |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
| Nevada |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
| New Hampshire |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| New Jersey |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
| New Mexico |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| New York |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
| North Carolina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
| North Dakota |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
| Ohio |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
| Oklahoma |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
| Oregon |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
| Pennsylvania |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rhode Island |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| South Carolina |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| South Dakota |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Tennessee |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
| Texas |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Utah |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vermont |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
| Virginia |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Washington |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| West Virginia |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
| Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| Wyoming |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
| Total |
7 |
3 |
9 |
6 |
25 |
29 |
22 |
1 |
31 |
27 |
| Additional |
7 |
3 |
7 |
5 |
16 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
| Accumulated |
7 |
10 |
17 |
22 |
38 |
44 |
46 |
46 |
48 |
48 |
In
the above table, the line "Additional" are the number of
states for which that defect is in addition to previously indicated
defects, and "Accumulated" is a running total of states
with defects, from Defect 01 through 10.
Since
36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify would
be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three
defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects
of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have
only two states which successfully ratified.
Note
that in the above we are counting Ohio as a state, even though it
was not admitted into the Union until 1953 (retroactively, which is
expost facto, and unconstitutional). We are not counting the
failure to designate the Income Tax Amendment as the "XVII"
amendment, since there was arguably a 13th Amendment that was ratified
but which is not published in official copies of the Constitution
with Amendments, and the number is not necessarily part of the amendment
(It wasn't part of the first 10.).
The
authority usually cited for the criticality of ratification without
errors of spelling, capitalization, or punctuation, is from DOCUMENT
NO. 97-120, of the 97TH CONGRESS, 1st Session, entitled How Our
Laws Are Made, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr. Esq., Law Revision
Counsel of the United States House of Representatives, in which the
comparable exactitude in which bills must be concurred under federal
legislative rules is detailed:
...Each
amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill,
with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted
by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate
receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed
the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling
clerk. (at 34) (emphasis added).
When
the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies
(either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in
the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference
report) a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.
The
preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task
since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments,
either by deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies.
The enrolling clerk... must prepare meticulously the final form of
the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to
the President... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment
exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with
the action taken. (at 45) (emphasis added)
It
should be noted that in his report on ratifications of the Income
Tax Amendment to then Secretary of State Philander Knox, the Solicitor
of the Department of State, recognized many of the defects of wording,
spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, although he seemed ignorant
of the constitutional and procedural defects at the state level. He
also pointed out similar defects in the ratifications of the 14th
and 15th Amendments. Therefore, Knox had plenty of clues to the problems
in the ratifications, sufficient to justify that he inquire into the
matter further and demand corrective action by the states. Because
he failed to do so means that we now have adopted and enforced legislation
for more than 80 years that is plainly unconstitutional, requiring
not only that it be repealed, but that all the funds collected be
refunded.
The
states could, of course, re-ratify the Income Tax Amendment, but they
could not do so retroactively. That would allow re-enactment of the
Internal Revenue Code, and re-issuance of all the supporting regulations,
but none of them could apply to the period prior to proper ratification
of the amendment and due notices of the regulations.
Readers
are invited to independently confirm or refute these results and to
similarly investigate the ratifications of other constitutional amendments,
both at the federal and state levels, and to issue similar reports
on what they find.
|