Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: Re: IRS abuses #1
Message-ID: <483@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 14:07:15 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.483
Posted: Mon Feb 10 14:07:15 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 06:29:15 EST
References: <1002@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Lines: 26

In article <1002@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes:
>
>[]
>
>>It's foolish to say the tax itself is unconstitutional.  If you want to
>>say that some IRS methods may be unconstitutional, that's another matter.
>
>There are some interesting anomalies surrounding the 16th amendment.
>Some claim it was never properly ratified.  We'll be taking a look
>at some of this information shortly. 

	I'm always amused by people who try to show how income tax is
unconstitutional. 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination?
16th amendment not valid?

	Wake up. Let's do a thought experiment. You take the IRS to the
Supreme Court and prove beyond any doubt that the tax system in the US
is unconstitutional. What do you think the Supreme Court would rule? Do
you really think they would say, "Okay, he's right, the government has to
give everybody back the money they've paid since 1944, with interest. And
not only that, but the government can't tax anybody's income anymore."

	I'm sorry, but when the federal deficit is measured in trillions
of dollars, I have to think you're tilting at windmills.

		--MKR