I am very sorry to report, that I will no longer be supporting Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States.

Click here to see why.

I am sorry.

This will be my last post here.

I wish Pastor Baldwin all the best.

-Chuck Adkins

By cutting spending overseas and much of the waste at home. If we did not have an income tax we would still be taking in as much money today as our government did ten years ago. Ron Paul has expounded on that very issue many times.

Farewell.

Ray

How can you claim to be a "libertarian and constitutionalist" and not understand this economic position?

Google Ron Paul. He'll explain it to you. He has the same one!

Douglass

This is my absolute favorite anti-income-tax argument. Most claims that Americans aren't required to pay income tax rely on legal interpretations so tortured only a tax resister could possibly believe them. But the Ohio thing has just enough plausibility to give even sane people pause.
It all started when Ohio was preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of its admission to the Union in 1953. Researchers looking for the original statehood documents discovered there'd been a little oversight. While Congress had approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution, it had never passed a resolution formally admitting the future land of the Buckeyes. Technically, therefore, Ohio was not a state.
Predictably, when this came to light it was the subject of much merriment. One senator joshingly suggested that his colleagues from Ohio were drawing federal paychecks under false pretenses.
But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.
But then the tax resisters got to work. They argued that since Ohio wasn't officially a state until 1953, its ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1911 was invalid, and thus Congress had no authority to enact an income tax.
Baloney, argued rational folk. A sufficient number of states voted for ratification even if you don't count Ohio.
OK, said the resisters, but the proposed amendment had been introduced to Congress by the administration of William H. Taft. Taft had been born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. The Constitution requires that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Since Ohio was not a state in 1857, Taft was not a natural-born citizen, could not legally be president, and could not legally introduce the 16th Amendment. (Presumably one would also have problems with anything done by presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison, McKinley, and Harding, who were also born in Ohio.)
Get off it, the rationalists replied. The 1953 resolution retroactively admitted Ohio as of 1803, thereby rendering all subsequent events copacetic.
Uh-uh, said the resisters. The constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law. That means no retroactive admissions to statehood.
Uh, we'll get back to you on that, said the rationalists.
A call to the IRS elicited the following official statement: "The courts have . . . rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment . . . was not properly ratified. . . . In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Circuit 1954), the court dismissed an attack on the Sixteenth Amendment as being 'clearly unsubstantial and without merit,' as well as 'far fetched and frivolous.'"
Just one problem. The Porth decision didn't specifically address the Ohio argument. It just sort of spluttered that attacks on the 16th Amendment were stupid.
OK, they're stupid. But great matters have turned on seemingly sillier points of law. It's not like the Ohio argument couldn't have been defeated on the merits. One suspects that from a legal standpoint "ex post facto" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "retroactive." And of course the weight of 150 years of history, during which time everyone thought Ohio had been properly admitted, ought to count for something.
I'm not defending the crackpots. But if you're a parent you recognize that "because I said so" isn't much of an argument. Guess it's different if you're a judge.

All the arguments about the 16th amendment aside, we as a party can state our desire to repeal the 16th amendment, and put the U.S. government on a fiscal diet!

I am very sorry to report, that I will no longer be supporting Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States.

Click here to see why.

I am sorry.

This will be my last post here.

I wish Pastor Baldwin all the best.

-Chuck Adkins

No loss since you apparently didn't get it. Enjoy the LP and its Neocon candidate Bob Barr.Lofton interview w/him:
http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/...b_Barr.mp3

This post was last modified: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:51 PM by CPNCchair.

Watch Russo's movie From Freedom to fascism.

Libertarian? Like Boortz......

Of all the things I think I could choose as a disagreement that would cause me to stop supporting Baldwin, I think that is one of the weakest. I heard similar excuses as to why people would not support Ron Paul, and chose instead to support Mike Huckabee and others.

We just cannot bring ourselves to become unplugged from the system.

Later, Dude!

I was stupid enough to go to his blog to question him on his position. Here's what I said, and what he responded.

How is the FACT an opinion? I normally do not debate people, I say if Ephraim is joined to idols, then we should let him alone. But, curiosity was about to kill the fox, so I had to ask, and the only thing I got was a classic non-answer. This is doubleplusnongood.