“If Congress sees fit to impose a capitation, or other direct tax, it must be laid in proportion to the census; if Congress determines to impose duties, imposts, and excises, they must be uniform throughout the United States. These are not strictly limitations of power. They are rules prescribing the mode in which it shall be exercised. ... This review shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.”

When can you tell a legislator is lying ? His lips are moving !

Mike, isn't this a defense against the income tax? As I understand this, Congress is supposed to tax the States based upon how many citizens are in the States, and that Congress may not tax individual's property, contracts, or labor. And when the 16th Amendment was supposedly passed, those that proposed it said that it did not confer any new powers to the Congress but that the States could be taxed without being in proportion to the census -- but it did not give them the power to tax individuals directly. Thus the Income Tax is still unconstitutional. I believe the way they have gotten around this is that since we do not use real money, the 'notes' can be taxed any way they want -- it is a round about way to say that they are taxing the users of Federal Reserve notes which the above case was about taxing a Maine bank's notes 10%.

Archer, you are right. As a stand alone statement, it is almost accurate. It was Chase that translated the Constitution to impose a capitation and other direct tax during the war between the States (later to be found unconstitutional), set the foundation for the current Federal Reserve, stated States could not leave the States united, and came up with some pretty lame carpet bagging reasons to not pay bonds to southern States (especially Texas), punishing the South.

Well, I would say Mike - that by the information you shared that Chief Justice Chase had a problem with speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
First Chase stated "personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. And, then later imposed the complete opposite of what he previously had stated.
Hypocrisy and subterfuge all too often reigns supreme in Disney on the Potomac!

Yes, I am sure Chase was working from the inside (Chase Manhattan Bank comes to mind) -- indeed they use the 'law' to justify whatever benefits them most. He has however made clear that Congress does not have the power to tax income. Unfortunately, case law prior to 1934 cannot be used today in a court of law. Reading this case it becomes clearer how notes were used prior to 1913, and that they were considered taxable as commercial paper and thus the Income Tax, which was already determined to be unconstitutional after Lincoln tried it, was made 'legal' by making sure EVERYONE used these notes instead of gold or silver certificates. SO, if we actually used real money (gold and silver) it would NOT be taxable as income. Of course, gold was made illegal during FDR's reign, so that today it is simply assumed that income tax is compulsory to all.

Archer, thanks, well said. The trifecta of Income Tax, Social Security (being modified in 1935 to its present state) and the Federal Reserve were all needed to perfect the lose of financial freedom (and otherwise) and inalienable rights. As I've mentioned previously, I researched for a group that tried to get into court showing the 16th Amendment had never legally been ratified. Of course, that case wasn't allowed to proceed in the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land.

The redefinition of terms, concepts and words has been critical in eliminating a mental image of inalienable rights, liberty, freedom, natural law, justice and true wealth. Income for example, was originally related to a corporate or otherwise commercial profit in capitalism (a monetary system of debt such as Archer here explains excludes any form of capitalism; capitalism is excess capital, capital is an intrinsic valued tangible such as gold and silver coins). Labors were an exchange of equals, so much labor equaled so much barter, capital or medium of exchange (no gain, no profit, no income - a non-income related private agreement). By the time of the war between the States, income was being argured as though it were any medium of exchange, no matter how contracted (if the individual possessed barter, capital or a medium of exchange, the government owns it and can take what ever percentage it wants). Terms such as direct and indirect also had to change meaning. Indirect now includes the individual person in his being (a capitation, a head tax, a tax on life, etc.).