CORRECTIONS: Please replace each of the following oral readings with the following in the interest of precision:
Was the 16th Amendment properly ratified per Law? This question is worthy of enumeration here (see the below).
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 2
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Kindly report any and all errors in the comments.
In good faith. Not liable for error. Not to be construed as correct without true and proper review, per se.
FROM CHATGPT:
Argument: The 16th Amendment Was Never Legally Ratified
I. Introduction
Ratified in 1913, the 16th Amendment empowered Congress to levy income taxes without apportionment among the states. However, strong evidence suggests it was never validly ratified under the Constitution. If so, the federal income tax rests on an illegitimate foundation.
II. Constitutional Requirement for Ratification
Article V of the Constitution states:
“…shall be valid… when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States…”
In 1913, 36 of 48 states were needed. The process requires:
- Ratification of the exact language proposed by Congress.
- Compliance with each state’s legislative procedures.
- Certification by the U.S. Secretary of State.
III. Evidence of Ratification Irregularities
Research by Bill Benson (The Law That Never Was) highlights serious defects:
A. Altered Amendment Texts
Many states modified wording, punctuation, or capitalization.
Example: Kentucky allegedly ratified a grammatically altered version.
Even minor textual changes void a ratification.
B. Legislative Procedure Violations
Several states violated their own rules:
- Lacked a quorum
- Bypassed required votes
- Failed to obtain governor’s approval (where required)
These process errors render ratifications invalid.
C. Conflicting Official Records
Legislative journals in some states show no vote occurred, despite later being counted.
Example: Texas allegedly never voted on the amendment at all.
IV. Unlawful Certification by Philander Knox
Secretary of State Philander Knox, under Taft, certified ratification on Feb. 25, 1913.
Critics argue he:
- Ignored irregularities
- Counted defective ratifications
- Exercised unconstitutional discretion under Article V
His certification bypassed legal scrutiny and the states’ true decisions.
V. Supreme Court Has Not Reviewed Ratification Validity
Though the Court upheld the effects of the 16th Amendment (Brushaber, Glenshaw Glass), it has never ruled on the ratification process itself.
Lower courts defer to the Secretary of State, creating a dangerous precedent: allowing unelected officials to declare constitutional amendments valid without legal review.
VI. Implications: Unconstitutional Federal Power
If the amendment was not lawfully ratified:
- All income tax enforcement is unconstitutional
- The IRS lacks legitimate authority
- A massive, decades-long fraud has eroded state sovereignty and citizen rights
VII. Call for Redress
Congress must investigate this constitutional breach.
The Supreme Court must finally address whether the 16th Amendment was ever lawfully adopted.
Until then, income tax enforcement rests on shaky ground.
Summary
The 16th Amendment’s legitimacy is open to serious doubt. Procedural violations, textual discrepancies, and improper certification raise constitutional red flags. A full judicial review—not bureaucratic assumption—is overdue.
Disclaimer: not responsible for the outputs of ChatGPT. Are any of the other Amendments, perhaps, to be reconsidered as unlawful?
