OPB Politics Now is a weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into the hottest political topics in Oregon and the Northwest. Every Friday, OPB’s political reporters and special guests offer in-depth analysis, discussion and insight into candidates, events and issues.
Manage episode 213114199 series 1033144
โดย NWO3 และถูกค้นพบโดย Player FM และชุมชนของเรา -- ลิขสิทธิ์นี้เป็นของผู้เผยแพร่ ไม่ใช่ Player FM โดยมีการสตรีมเสียงโดยตรงจากเซิร์ฟเวอร์ผู้เผยแพร่ กดปุ่มติดตามเพื่อติดตามการอัพเดทใน Player FM หรือวาง URL ฟีดนี้ไปยังแอพพอดคาสท์อื่น
WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law May 5, 2000 Mr. William J. Benson Constitutional Scholar 1128 East 160th Place South Holland, IL 60473 You may address me simply as Warren and I’ll call you Bill. My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual data- over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which includes your two books, is truly monumental. Before going to the subject of your books-the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was not properly ratified-I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative), it was clearly within the Court’s discretion to render their verdict in the Pollock case. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case can only be changed by one of two methods: The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse the Pollock case; or, An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or rejected. The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second alternative. In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, what is the legal framework upon which the current income tax law is based? Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you even visualize the reaction of the members of Congress? Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step and suggest what should be done now. Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your country. Sincerely, P.S.: Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even shown, to anyone other than the recipient without permission of the author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other people at your discretion.