at the height of the Revolutionary war there probably weren't any more than 10% of the people involved. In fact a whole bunch of people were really unhappy about the situation and moved to Canada.

Good Luck.


A Republican Government

Before we start I want to make it very, very clear that I do not want you to accept what I say at face value. Please do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and then, and only then, take whatever actions, if any, that you feel are warranted.

Here are some basic thoughts on our present government situation.

The Constitution for the united States of America promises a Republican Form of government for each State. This does not mean that the Republican Party will control each State.

There are many different forms of government. I will try to set forth the better known forms with a short definition of what they are, and how they differ from each other.

Kingdom, or Monarchy:

The head of this government is a King, or a Queen, that usually holds the position because of their genealogical birth right.

In a pure Kingdom, the King, or Queen holds absolute authority over all matters. This is the type of government we read about in the Old Testament. There are still countries today that refer to themselves as Kingdoms, but they are generally modified to where the King's, or Queen's, power has some limitation on it.

In a Monarchy there is still a King, or Queen, at the head of the government, but it is usually a title more than actual power. The real power is centered in a political body that is either elected by the people, or appointed through some process outside the power of the King or Queen. This is the case in the United Kingdom.

Dictatorship:

This is generally a government that has come to power by brute force without the consent of the people. There are many examples of Dictators spread around the world today. Many of the Dictatorships offer the people an opportunity to "vote" for their leader, but the election is merely a staged affair.

Theocracy:

This is a government where the head of the official government church is also the head of the government. Some of the Moslem Nations could be considered to be Theocracies, and, in fact, in could be said that the United Kingdom is a Theocracy because the King, or Queen, is the head of the Church of England.

In a true Theocracy, the priests of the church are the leaders of the government and every decision is weighed in the light of church canon, and the dogma put forth by the church leaders in order to control the people.

When Jesus Christ returns He will rule in a true Theocracy, but it will be in total righteousness, which is beyond the ability of any mortal being to do.

Democracy:

This is the type of government that our officials claim we have in the United States. This is not what the Founding Fathers set up, it is what their efforts have evolved into through the further efforts of corrupt and evil men and women. A Democracy is a government where the majority rules over the minority. It has been referred to as "Mob Rule Government" because those in power have such a hold on everything that any changes would be hard to come by.

A few days ago I commented to a friend that this was the case with the Federal Government of the United States and he pointed out that the minorities were actually pushing for and receiving the benefits, not the majority. What he did not stop to think about was the fact the controlling people benefit by feeding the minority scraps "off the table" in order to strengthen their position.

Because people have a "vote" in a democracy they think they control the government. Isn't it strange that no matter who wins in the election the same policies go forth, the same problems are always there, the same taxes are always with us. That's because we really don't get a chance to select the people that really run the country.

Oligarchy:

Rule by lawyers. This is the real form of government which we now endure. We are repeatedly told that we live in a Democracy, but it is a cover-up for what has really happened. Lawyers have crept into control of the Legislative Branch of our Government to the point that they have created "make work" laws for their own personal benefit -- a whole bunch of make work laws that increases our dependency on the lawyers.

They have through their Bar Association, and their secret oaths and pledges to each other, created a system wherein lawyers have assumed a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquires" and receive the "honor" of offices and positions (like District Attorney or Judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of the people in the United States. Through these privileges, they have established a two-tiered citizenship in this Nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may hold political office.

They have made the "Laws" supreme to the point where court documents "pray to the judge" for certain decisions. Is it any wonder that God is under attack?

Let's look at one of the make work laws that has been created. The tax code, the required filings for compliance with government regulations are so complex that it is necessary to hire "full time" attorneys just to keep from getting in trouble with the government.

There are now over 60 million laws on the books of the Federal and State governments. Do you know them all? How do you keep from breaking one of them? What is to stop the government from oppressing you with an obscure law? This is not what our Founding Father had in mind, and, we are not the first country to fall victim to Lawyers.

Ancient Jerusalem had Lawyer Problems.

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him. -- New Testament - Luke 11:42 - 54

I do not hesitate in quoting scriptural sources because our claim of Individual Sovereignty is based in God's law, and the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were both based on a firm belief in Jesus Christ as our Redeemer, our Savior, and more importantly, as our Creator.

Even though most of the readers do not have a belief in the truth of the Book of Mormon, the following quote simply fortifies the problem with Lawyers.

And now it came to pass that the people were more angry with Amulek, and they cried out, saying: This man doth revile against our laws which are just, and our wise lawyers whom we have selected. But Amulek stretched forth his hand, and cried the mightier unto them, saying: O ye wicked and perverse generation, why hath Satan got such great hold upon your hearts? Why will ye yield yourselves unto him that he may have power over you, to blind your eyes, that ye will not understand the words which are spoken, according to their truth? For behold, have I testified against your law? Ye do not understand; ye say that I have spoken against your law; but I have not, but I have spoken in favor of your law, to your condemnation. And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges. And now it came to pass that when Amulek had spoken these words the people cried out against him, saying: Now we know that this man is a child of the devil, for he hath lied unto us; for he hath spoken against our law. And now he says that he has not spoken against it. And again, he has reviled against our lawyers, and our judges. And it came to pass that the lawyers put it into their hearts that they should remember these things against him. And there was one among them whose name was Zeezrom. Now he was the foremost to accuse Amulek and Alma, he being one of the most expert among them, having much business to do among the people. Now the object of these lawyers was to get gain; and they got gain according to their employ. -- Book of Mormon - Alma 10:24 - 32

We have the exact same problems today. The Lawyers have gotten a hold on our government, and unless we make the effort to take it back we will sink further and further into slavery.

Republic:

This is the form of government that was established for us, by our Founding Fathers. This is a government that is based on the fact that the people are Sovereign and that the people are over the government at all times.

This form of government is based on God's law, and to the extent we are capable of living in accordance with the Laws of God, we will have our God given Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The very basis of our breaking away from England was clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence when the Signers claimed:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The word "unalienable" means that our rights cannot be taken away from us, nor can they be modified, changed, or diminished by anyone, including ourselves. We cannot sell, barter, or assign our unalienable Rights to anyone. We cannot lose them – we can only fail to use them, which is virtually that same as not having them.

The King of England could not take away our rights. Our congress and our own government leaders cannot take away our rights. The only thing they can do, in their efforts to enslave us, is to make God illegal so we have problems claiming and using our unalienable Rights. The courts of our land have come a long way toward doing just that.

The Constitution establishes three separate and distinct systems of law.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State;10 — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. -- Article III - Section 2

The Judicial Power of the Supreme Court and the Inferior Courts establish under it, are limited to cases "arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties Made." The Section then goes into great length by itemizing the exact Cases and Controversies that are included in the Judicial Power of the courts. Beyond the itemized list the Courts have no power as everything else is in the hands of the People.

Our Founding Fathers knew very well that they were creating a "Monster" when they created the federal government. The constitution is the cage they built to try and contain the creature. The careful enumeration of the powers of the courts was to restrict the federal government to its cage so it would not, and could not, prey upon the Sovereign People who created it.

Just as we have been taught for years, we see that the Constitution granted powers to the federal government only in-so-far as it had to deal with foreign powers and our relationships with those foreign powers. A true and careful reading of the enumeration shows that the Judicial Powers of the United States does not include any power over any Sovereign Individual, except as there may be a dispute between individuals from different States.

Contrary to what is happening now, Congress has no power to pass laws that exceed the authority of the Judicial System to enforce them. In other words, the itemized list of Judicial Powers also limits the ability of Congress to pass laws in other areas since the Judicial System would have no power in those areas. Therefore, the laws would be worthless.

Thus, where it says "the Laws of the United States" it is talking about the laws that can be created in accordance with the enumeration of Judicial Powers – Nothing else.

Convincing a "run-away" congress that such is the case will be a major problem, but the procedure for doing so is outlined below.

Before we proceed we need to understand the various Law Systems and their relative powers and authority.

Common Law:

This is the system of laws that forms the basis for our dealings with one another. The Common Laws were adapted from the English system of Common Laws that has its roots in centuries of tradition and was given even greater force and effectiveness in the signing of the Magna Carta by King James.

Whenever the word "Law" appears in the Constitution and other supporting documents it is generally referring to the Common Law System.

The Common Law System belongs to WE THE PEOPLE. There are no provisions set forth in the Constitution concerning how, when, or where to establish Common Law Courts.

The power to establish the Common Law Courts belongs to the people.

Remember, all powers not granted to the federal entity were retained by the people. There are no provisions concerning the Common Law System because it belongs to the people and the Supreme Court has ruled that neither the Federal Government or any of the State Governments have any power in Common Law, and they have no right to assume control, modify, alter, or change the Common Law System.

The fact that the Common Law System is superior to all other legal or court systems that could be established is clearly set forth in the 7th Article of the Bill of Rights.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Did you catch that? "and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." And, the Supreme Court has already ruled that neither the Federal Government nor any State Government has any power of Common Laws, so no Federal or State Government can reexamine a fact tried by a Common Law Jury. Not even the Supreme Court.

Equity Court:

These Courts also existed in England and have jurisdiction over contracts and written agreements. They have no power over the people. As the name implies, they were set up to assure that disputes were settled in a fair and equitable manner.

James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention show that several of the delegates wanted to combine the Common Law and Equity Courts. This proposal was soundly defeated.

Maritime Court:

These Courts also existed in England and have jurisdiction over problems arising on the high seas.

Because these courts have the power to deal with people and events, the corrupt individuals who have tried to steal our Individual Sovereignty have unlawfully made everyone subject to the Maritime Courts. When was the last time you committed a crime on the high seas?

We have all been taught that the English Laws formed the basis for our Laws. We have also been taught that the power and authority behind the Constitution is the people. We know that we have the right to alter, or amend, the form of government. But we have been very carefully kept in the dark as to the real extent of those powers, authorities, and rights. And, we have not been taught how to use them to defend ourselves from corruption in high places.

Speaking of rights, are you aware that the Constitution does not grant any rights of any kind to the people?

There is no such thing as a "persons Constitutional Rights."

The people created the Constitution, and they have the power and authority to modify it, what greater power or rights do they need. There is nothing the Constitution could grant to the people that is greater than what they already have and hold.

Here again, let me repeat myself, our Founding Fathers knew very well that they were creating a "Monster" when they created the federal government. The constitution is the cage they built to try and contain the creature. The Bill of Rights merely added a few more bars to the cage. If you doubt this, read the Articles in the Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The Preamble and almost every on of the Articles state that the Government shall not infringe upon the Peoples rights. The rights are already in place for the People. They are your unalienable rights. And the Government is being restricted from attacking those rights.

In order to clearly demonstrate that what has been said is true, we need to but look at two Amendments to the Constitution. One of these is the "Missing" 13th Amendment and the other is the 16th Amendment.

When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution the recent war with England was very fresh in their minds.

There were various "Agents" for some of the European Countries and for the European Bankers who were trying to guide the formation of our Federal Entity in a manner to suit their greed and desire for power. These Agents were being rewarded for their underhanded service by the governments in Europe. They were being given money to satify their greed, and the Title of Nobility of "Esquire" to satisfy their need for power.

The Constitution, in two places, makes it unlawful for someone to receive payment, gifts, or titles of nobility from any state or foreign government.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. -- Article 1 - Section 9

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -- Article 1 - Section. 10.

Even though the Constitution clearly prohibits Titles of Nobility and payments by foreign governments there were no provisions for any penalty should someone violate these Sections of the Constitution.

In 1789, when the Bill of Rights was proposed there were 12 Amendments, one of which had to do with establishing a punishment for accepting, or assuming, a Title of Nobility. The Senate reduced the number of Amendments to 10, which were eventually ratified as our Bill of Rights.

In January of 1810 Senator Phillip Reed of Maryland proposes a "title of nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). The first version of the Titles Of Nobility Amendment (or TONA) is read to the Senate.

After various changes, the final draft that was sent to the states for ratification was:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

At that time there were 17 states in the union. These were: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia.

Since Ratification requires acceptance by ¾ of the then existing States the proposed Amendment would have to be ratified by 13 states to become effective.

The following dates are of key importance in understanding what happened in the ratification process.

December 25, 1810 Maryland Number 1
January 31, 1811 Kentucky Number 2
January 31, 1811 Ohio Number 3
February 2, 1811 Delaware Number 4
February 6, 1811 Pennsylvania Number 5
February 13, 1811 New Jersey Number 6
October 24, 1811 Vermont Number 7
November 21, 1811 Tennessee Number 8
December 13, 1811 Georgia Number 9
Unknown Virginia Number 10
December 23, 1811 North Carolina Number 11
February 27, 1812 Massachusetts Number 12
June 12, 1812 New Hampshire Governor Notifies the New Hampshire Legislature that Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Vermont have all Ratified -
December 10, 1812 New Hampshire Number 13

The exact Ratification Date for Virginia has not been located, however, from the ratification by New Jersey in February of 1811 until the ratification by Vermont in October of 1811 is a span of several months. None of the earlier ratifications are report to the New Hampshire Legislature as the Legislature was probably already fully aware of those actions. Following the winter months, in which travel would have been difficult, the Governor notified the Legislature of the notices of ratification that he had received. Virginia probably fell within the block that was ratified during the winter, as those are the states with which Virginia is mentioned.

The Governor's notice to the New Hampshire Legislature mentions letters received from Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Vermont indicating their ratification of the 13th Amendment.

In the year 2002, a bill, House Concurrent Resolution 10, was placed before the New Hampshire legislature, to reaffirm New Hampshire's December 9, 1812 ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. There is no deadline date established for the ratification. The first Amendment that had a deadline associated with it was in 1917.

In February 2003 -- Rep. Marple, who is the prime sponsor of the New Hampshire Resolution 10 above, sent the Titles of Nobility Act (TONA) Committee copies of pages from the New Hampshire Journal of the Senate, Dated June 12, 1812, that has these surprising statements on pages 48 and 49:

Page 48: "The following was received from His Excellency the Governor, by the Secretary.

To the Senate and House of Representatives.
I herewith communicate to the Legislature for their consideration, certain laws and resolutions passed by the Legislatures of Georgia, North-Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Vermont, upon the subject of amendments of the Constitution of the United States, together with letters from the executive officers of those States. -- WILLIAM PLUMER"

Page 49:

"Voted, That Messers. Kimball and Ham, with such as the House of Representatives may join, be a committee to take into consideration certain laws and resolutions passed by the Legislatures of Georgia, North-Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Vermont, and other documents accompanying the same, communicated this day by His Excellency the Governor, and report thereon. Sent down for concurrence."

Be that as it may, in 1819, as prescribed by the Virginia Legislature, a book of the Laws of Virginia was published which included a copy of the Constitution of the United States showing the "Missing" 13th Amendment. Virginia clearly recognized the fact that the 13th Amendment was properly ratified and part of the Laws of the Land.

Many States and Territories of the United States have published copies of the Constitution for the United States in which the 13th Amendment is included.

The following States published, as an official document, in one form or another, a copy of the Constitution for the United States that showed the 13th Amendment as officially ratified and part of the Laws of the Land.

State Dates of Publication
Connecticut 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Georgia 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana 1824, 1831, 1838
Kansas 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky 1822
Louisiana 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine 1825, 1831
Massachusetts 1823
Mississippi 1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845
Nebraska 1873
North Carolina 1819, 1828
Ohio 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania 1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island 1822
Virginia 1819

The following Territories published, as a part of their official documentation, a copy of the Constitution for the United States of America that showed the 13th Amendment as officially ratified and part of the Laws of the Land. The interesting thing about this list is that before the documentation could be published it had to be approved by the United States Congress. This means that on at least 30 separate occasions over a span of 53 years, 1823 to 1876, the United States Congress confirmed the validity of the 13th Amendment.

Territory Dates of Publication
Colorado Terrirory 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Dakota Territory 1862, 1863, 1867
Florida Territory 1823, 1825, 1838
Iowa Territory 1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas Territory 1855
Michigan Territory 1827, 1833
Nebraska Territory 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862
Northwestern Territories 1833
Wyoming Territory 1869, 1876

Why all of the fuss about the 13th Amendment and the Titles of Nobility Act?

When the Lawyers join their Bar Association they are granted, and assume, the Nobility Title, Esquire. We have all seen attorney's put Esquire after their names. This title is granted by the King, or Queen, of England through the International Bar Association, that was established by the King of England in Colonial days, through the American Bar Association and thence through each of the State Bar Associations.

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).

When the Lawyers assume their title of nobility they lose their Citizenship in the United States and have no right to serve in any office of trust or profit in the Federal Government or in any State Government.

In Colonial America, lawyers trained lawyers but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor".

There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer;

There were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principal title of nobility which the Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.

The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant.

According to Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the Thirteenth Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

In this context, "honor" would be the key concept in the Thirteenth Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).

I mentioned two examples. We have pretty well covered the first, now let's look at the second.

It too has to do with money, power, and greed. It is the 16th Amendment that authorized the federal government to collect income tax.

Text of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"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."

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires that ¾ of the States ratify any Amendment proposed by Congress. In 1913 there were 48 States. That means that ratification by 36 states would be required. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

Detailed research by various people has turned up a large number of ratification killing discrepancies. In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

Lets look at the problems.

The Four States listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

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 the 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.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that NOT A SINGLE STATE had actually and lawftlly ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution.

Thirty Three States engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. The Amendment is sent out by Congress for each State to ratify so that each State has approved the exact, same, wording, punctuation, spelling and capitalization. If anything is changed then the State that made the changes did not ratify the same Amendment the other States ratified, and, therefore, the ratification process does not hold.

Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the States. This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".

Since 36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.

Note that in the above we are counting Ohio as a state, even though it was not admitted into the Union until 1953 (retroactively, which is expost facto, and unconstitutional). We are not counting the failure to designate the Income Tax Amendment as the "XVII" amendment, since there was arguably a 13th Amendment that was ratified but which is not published in official copies of the Constitution with Amendments, and the number is not necessarily part of the amendment (It wasn't part of the first 10).

The authority usually cited for the criticality of ratification without errors of spelling, capitalization, or punctuation, is from DOCUMENT NO. 97-120, of the 97TH CONGRESS, 1st Session, entitled How Our Laws Are Made, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr. Esq., Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives, in which the comparable exactitude in which bills must be concurred under federal legislative rules is detailed:

...Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk.

When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies (either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference report) a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.

The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken.

It should be noted that in his report on ratifications of the Income Tax Amendment to then Secretary of State Philander Knox, the Solicitor of the Department of State, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., the uncle of the writer, recognized many of the defects of wording, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. He pointed out similar defects in the ratifications of the 14th and 15th Amendments. His Legal Opinion certifies that NOT ONE STATE VALIDLY RATIFIED THE AMENDMENT.

Secretary Knox had plenty of clues to the problems in the ratifications, sufficient to justify that he inquire into the matter further and demand corrective action by the states. Because he failed to do so means that we now have adopted and enforced legislation for more than 80 years that is plainly unconstitutional, requiring not only that it be repealed, but that all the funds collected be refunded.

The states could, of course, re-ratify the Income Tax Amendment, but they could not do so retroactively. That would allow re-enactment of the Internal Revenue Code, and re-issuance of all the supporting regulations, but none of them could apply to the period prior to proper ratification of the amendment and due notices of the regulations.

Constitutional Quiz | Truth | Index to Historical Documents | Basic Concepts

Other Comments of Interest

Return to Home Page

Please direct all comments to:
reply@constitutionalconcepts.org