Friday, September 21, 2007

The 16th Amendment and the Government Coverup

The 16th Amendment-Bill Benson Litigation includes the issue of whether the 16th Amendment was actually ratified by thirty-six states as required by the United States Constitution. If the 16th Amendment was not ratified, the federal income tax is unconstitutional. That means you don’t have to file tax returns or pay the income tax. Congress would have to impose a different kind of tax.

Article V of the United States Constitution requires the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States to ratify a proposed constitutional amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States: “Nothing less results in the Constitution being amended.” See Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 669 (1892). [“Field” is the name of the Plaintiff and “Clark” is the name of the Defendant. “143 U.S. 649" means the case is reported in volume 143 of the United States Reports starting at page 649. The United States Reports is the designated official set of books for recording decisions of the United States Supreme Court. “669" is the page in the opinion where the cited principle is found. “(1892)” is the year the case was decided.]

At the time of the 16th Amendment ratification process, there was in place a law passed by Congress regarding the administrative procedure to be utilized for proclaiming ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment. That legislation was Section 205 of the Revised Statutes which stated:
Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published n the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States. Section 205, Revised Statutes.
This statute has been interpreted by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 (1986), citing to Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922), the Seventh Circuit wrote: “official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so [ratified the amendment] was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.”

This so called “conclusive presumption” is anathema to the entire concept of due process and freedom the American people believe they have. In the Bill Benson litigation, the government is seeking an injunction to prevent him from “falsely” telling people about the government fraud surrounding the 16th Amendment and the federal income tax. Benson’s defense is that he is “telling the truth.” The government, however, will not allow Benson’s evidence of the truth to be considered because of the “conclusive presumption.”

Revised Statute 205 has been interpreted by the 7th Circuit, and other courts, as only requiring notice of ratification, not actual ratification as required by Article V of the United States Constitution. The proof of whether or not a state actually ratified a proposed amendment is contained in the state’s legislative journals. The entire purpose behind a legislative journal is to record exactly what transpired so the people can keep abreast of what our elected officials are doing, and perhaps more importantly, how they are doing it.

The 16th Amendment - Bill Benson litigation is a perfect example of how the federal government violates the Constitution, and how one branch will cover up for the other. If you recall from your high school civics class, we have three branches of government, legislative, executive and judicial, supposedly to watch each other to insure they do not exceed their constitutional authority. Today the three branches of government only coverup gross constitutional violations.

Complete details of the 16th Amendment - Bill Benson Litigation, including the pleadings filed in the case, are on my web site: