The truth about the US Constitution: Section 8 and Amendment 16

[Sundiver]

AkIron, it is in Texas. Not sure about them.."Yankee" states.

[Toad]

Bottom line:

Did not ratify: Connecticut, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Virginia  7

Kentucky, Tennessee and Wyoming reported ratification of the 16th, but there's no evidence they actually did so. 3

Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution: Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington 5 additional "new" ones

Totals: 7 + 3 + 5 = 15

Not enough States proven legally ratified.

Need more?

Missing or incomplete evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified: Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Sourh Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming 7 additional "new" ones


Argue with this guy, he's looking for folks to disprove him:

The Law That Never Was

Throw out the present system as unratified. It's are ONLY chance to get a complete "new sheet of paper" system.

The present system is a mess; even the IRS admits that. Look at the AMT.

And, I think a case CAN be made that it never was properly ratified. Cheez... we gotta try... it's our ONLY hope.

[Toad]

For example:

The federal government claims that the State of Kentucky was the second state to ratify the amendment, such action taking place on February 8, 1910. But, the records of the State of Kentucky reveal a far different picture. These records show that the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and then sent that resolution to the Senate in early February, 1910. On February 8, 1910, the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. The Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment, but federal officials, being in possession of documents showing this rejection, fraudulently claimed otherwise."

Can anyone disprove this?

Another:

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.

The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.

The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

[miko2d]

banana,

 The drafters of the constitution in their letters confirmed that the authority to provide for "general Welfare" applied to specifically enumerated powers of the government - specifically those listed  in Section 8.

 The founders were explicit about enumerated powers doctrine - stating that "the power the people give to government, to exercise on their behalf, is strictly limited. The 10th Ammendment confirms that.

 It is kind of hard to make a case that an all-inclusive "general Welfare" clauses were "strictly limited" or that the stated delegated this power to the federal government and thus are not allowed to provide for the general welfare of state residents.


 Anyway, this issue will never be resolved academically because the wording is not specific enough to prevent multiple interpretations, especially since the meaning of the words "provide" and "regulate" changed over the two hundred years, as well as the notions of what constitutes "public welfare".

 miko

[Wanker]

Anyway, this issue will never be resolved academically because the wording is not specific enough to prevent multiple interpretations, especially since the meaning of the words "provide" and "regulate" changed over the two hundred years, as well as the notions of what constitutes "public welfare".

Agreed.