Tom Cryer, Dr. Elaine and Ed Brown

[AnimeSpirit]

Originally Posted by joepole

Except, of course, for the part that specifically does:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

That would be Ammendment 16, ratified 1913. It looks legitimate to me.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[joepole]

Also Article I, Section 8:


The Congress shall have power...to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[LateNight]

Actually, I think Tom Cryers winning of his case, came down to his argument on exactly "What is income"
I believe it was something like he proved that the definition of Income as defined by the supreme court is NOT income from our labor, but rather things like interest and profit. You CANNOT tax a persons labor because it is a God given right that we may work to support ourselves.

[joepole]

Maybe, but to say "there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the taxation of income" is just flat-out wrong.

The local guy had an interesting argument that won't survive appeal because it was so obviously wrong. The main problem with juries is that most people are stupid.