| 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 |
|
