Do you support repeal of the 16th Amendment?

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:44:41 -0400

Widely disputed amendment allowing congress to levy taxes. It has definitely played a role, more recently in taxing those [infidels] who did not sign up for Obamacare. Are you for or against this or other constitutional revisions?

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2014 10:46 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:46:40 -0400

Though it would be great, I don't think this amendment is of high threat, at least yet. On the contrary, repealing it would open the door to modifying other popular ones such as those in bill of rights

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2014 8:58 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:58:22 -0400

I don't think the government should be able to do that we fought the British back in the revolutionary war over This same exact thing (the boston tea party).

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 6:18 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:18:33 -0500

I'm for repeal of this and the 17th Amendment.

The income tax is the operand of most of the harmful dislocations in our economy.

The 17th is simply opposite of the idea of a republican form of government which is supposed to be guaranteed to us.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 6:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:20:14 -0500

I am for constitutional revisions on an as needed basis. There is clear precedent with the 27 amendments to the document already. Including one amendment repealing another (prohibition).

All that being said, there are some who believe that the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Nov 22 at 2014 7:54 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:54:30 -0500

Then who would fund the Congressional pension fund? I know, put in the stock market like all our 401Ks.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2014 12:15 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:15:32 -0500

The problem with the 16th amendment is that it somewhat nullifies the 10th amendment. Fiscal federalism then becomes more potent than true federalism. As a result, national defense and foreign policy get lumped in with other interests, and loses their priority and importance.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2014 2:09 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 02:09:26 -0500

I am for any type of tax revision as long as it is less invasive and not more.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 25 at 2014 9:26 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:26:45 -0500

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 25 at 2014 9:31 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:31:31 -0500

I personally would love to see either a flat tax system (and government cuts to deal with that) or some manner of taxation where the states pay a percentage by their population, but the populace only pays state taxes to those states they live in. Also possibly a flat tax.

This would give the states power again, if the federal powers attempt to seize too much power, the states that disagree or are harmed can hold back the tax money at the state level.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Nov 25 at 2014 10:28 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:28:04 -0500

Yes, Repeal the 16th Amendment, and the 17th amendment also, while we're at it... the Senate was supposed to be elected by the State's respective Legislatures to represent the State's Interests in the Central Government, NOT to act generally for that Central government as they do now.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Nov 26 at 2014 1:09 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:09:20 -0500

MSgt Bill Jones, Again, I will not attempt to impugn your character, or make unwarranted and uninformed assertions regarding you, as you appear to be prone to doing. I would, however like to address some of your statements. First, it seems apparent that you have mischaracterized my political affiliation as well as the "polarized" nature of my politics. I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, and I hold much disdain for both political parties. Politically speaking I find myself aligned most closely with Libertarian thought. This most closely puts me in the Classical Liberal category. Philosophically I identify with Objectivism. I hope you will have no further cause to ignorantly mischaracterize my affiliation as "GOP", or "right wing".

As to your assertion regarding the GOP attempting to do away with the 13th and 14th amendments, that was NOT a "metaphor". (Metaphor, a figure of speech that identifies one thing as being the same as some unrelated other thing, thus strongly implying the similarities between the two.) ex. "All the world's a stage". Your statement does NOT resemble a metaphor, instead it was a linear statement that was clear in it's meaning. Such a statement is not Metaphorical, but more closely resembles Hyperbole (An exaggeration used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression. Or possibly Demagoguery. Either way, it was a linear statement that was not based on any actual evidence, as you were unable to produce any when politely asked.

I also see that in one "breath" you use the letters "GOP" and "Conservative" These two groups of letters do not belong in the same sentence, as Republicans, as a whole bear no resemblance to Conservatism. Conservatism means to Conserve, or to resist change. In the American Sense, this means a Conservative is intent on preserving the philosophical foundations of the founding of our Nation. This means an adherence to the principles put forth in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Now you also mention that the GOP is "so concerned about the make-up of the Supreme Court" Are you implying that the Democrats are not? Are you aware that once FDR's Supreme court began turning against his policies and programs, in his quest for ever more Concentrated power in Washington DC, he went so far as to suggest that MORE justices be added to the Court so he could once again have a likeminded majority? I hope we won't be hearing about "Republican gerrymandering" next, as the Democrats are equally prone to the same tactic.

Your statements are the ones that seem politically polarized, if not in favor of Democrats, then, certainly against the "GOP", and that is your right, I only hope you and your pot will refrain from calling the kettle black.

Here you wrote... "The fact that someone would even raise the repeal of Constitutional Amendments in this forum is indicia that Right-Wing forces have a very strong foothold in undermining our Republic for their own selfish and venal ends." Are you suggesting that the "Right-Wing forces" have some sort of monopoly on the idea of repealing Constitutional Amendments? If so I would bring to light the fact that it was the Right-wingers that brought about the prohibition of Alcohol, and the liberals who led the fight to repeal it. (Rightly so in my opinion.) The 18th amendment never belonged in the Constitution as it was antithetical to the purpose of the Constitution which was designed to define, and limit the powers of government, not to do so to the people.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2014 4:49 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:49:49 -0500

17th would be the one to repeal we already have representation in the HOUSE. Senators are the state legislature's voice no more 6 year fiefdoms.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made May 5 at 2015 2:55 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 05 May 2015 14:55:49 -0400

Not a lawyer, but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution grants the federal government the ability to levy taxes. This comes from happened during the failed Confederation of States, where a weak central government had little to no authority to pay off war debt. So while I am no fan of the IRS, it does make sense that we need an instrument that allows the government to the day to business of building schools, bridges, roads, provide for the common defense, and things of this nature.

The 16th Amendment would come later to further define the role of the federal government in its ability to tax.

Now you propose doing away with the 16th but you propose no counter argument for what to replace it with

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 6 at 2015 10:32 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:32:17 -0400

This was one of the worst mistakes this nation ever made. In principle, our ancestors voted themselves and their posterity into perpetual indentured servitude to the Federal government. In practice, it has led to increased class problems as well as giving the Federal government the money it needed to grow completely out of the bounds established for it by the Founders.