Where what law is? And something like this can't be undone by being clever. The intent of congress is for income tax to exist, and so it is enforced by the executive, under the supervision of the judiciary. That's all that really matters. And the case law is solid on how to interpret the rules.
The most that could happen is congress going 'oh, that was worded badly' and fixing the wording.
The 16th amendment cannot be in violation of the 5th. That's not how amending works.
Also doesn't that argument apply to all taxes? It seems pretty clear that blocking all taxes was not the intent, based on the rest of the constitution.
> A good start; seems to really bother the authortarians.
Really? I've never seen anyone bothered by that. Sounds fun to watch.
Perhaps we should ignore a small % of X Amendment claims? That would be a small gap right?
The Amendments dont confer rights to the people; they only remind the people of the things they gov has no power to do. See Amendment 0:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
Inalienable rights and differences in outcome are unrelated things, hence mentioning tariffs as protection by attack with slave labor. It's the primary job of a government to protect it's borders, physically and economically.
As that documentary nicely lays out, there is no constitutional law that anyone can point to on individual income tax. The IRS commissioner admits it.
The most that could happen is congress going 'oh, that was worded badly' and fixing the wording.
The 16th amendment cannot be in violation of the 5th. That's not how amending works.
Also doesn't that argument apply to all taxes? It seems pretty clear that blocking all taxes was not the intent, based on the rest of the constitution.
> A good start; seems to really bother the authortarians.
Really? I've never seen anyone bothered by that. Sounds fun to watch.