This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tax protester constitutional arguments article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Tax protester constitutional arguments was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Your article cites Reynolds V US as supportive of the idea "that a religious belief, however strongly held, does not exempt the believer from adhering to general laws." I am curious as to weather these arguments have been attempted under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which does, in fact, hold that "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
I have done some substantial research, and cannot find any major case rulings in RE this issue - and it seems that there should be - am I looking in the wrong places, and if so, point me to the sources. Please do not refer me to the 'Peace Tax Act' or the related court decisions that led to it's introduction - the legislation is inherently flawed (refer to the Florida Lottery Education Fund to better understand why). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.93.199 ( talk) 16:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The following unsource nonsense was removed from the article:
The Bill Benson Sixteenth Amendment non-ratification argument is a fraud, and has been ruled to be so in federal court. It has lost every single time in court. Benson even tried to use his own argument in his own federal criminal tax trial -- and he was convicted. This is already covered in the applicable Wikipedia articles.
The argument that the Federal Reserve had been "recently formed" at the time the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified is also blatant nonsense. The Amendment was ratified in February of 1913. The Federal Reserve System was not even created until December of 1913.
And the argument that the Amendment is a "direct contradiction" of the Constitution is tantamount to a tax protester argument that somehow the federal income tax is unconstitutional. And there is no rule of constitutional law that says that an amendment to the constitution somehow cannot "directly contradict" the original provisions of the constitution. To argue otherwise would be to show a basic misunderstanding of how constitutional amendments work. Famspear ( talk) 01:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Besides the unsourced paragraphs that don't meet the new inline citation requirements, the article mainly cites primary sources and is filled with original research—as noted in the FAC some fifteen years ago! A cite to a case can be used for basic information about a case, but cannot establish that something is a "consitutional argument" used by a "tax protestor". If there are no secondary sources, I would say it's not relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia at all. BD2412 or anyone else may fix it but otherwise it needs GAR. ( t · c) buidhe 02:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition to being rather uncited, this 2007 listing is mostly "OR/SYNTH from US legal code & court cases", in the words of Hog Farm. Thus, the article may violate GA criteria 2b) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tax protester constitutional arguments article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Tax protester constitutional arguments was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Your article cites Reynolds V US as supportive of the idea "that a religious belief, however strongly held, does not exempt the believer from adhering to general laws." I am curious as to weather these arguments have been attempted under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which does, in fact, hold that "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."
I have done some substantial research, and cannot find any major case rulings in RE this issue - and it seems that there should be - am I looking in the wrong places, and if so, point me to the sources. Please do not refer me to the 'Peace Tax Act' or the related court decisions that led to it's introduction - the legislation is inherently flawed (refer to the Florida Lottery Education Fund to better understand why). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.93.199 ( talk) 16:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The following unsource nonsense was removed from the article:
The Bill Benson Sixteenth Amendment non-ratification argument is a fraud, and has been ruled to be so in federal court. It has lost every single time in court. Benson even tried to use his own argument in his own federal criminal tax trial -- and he was convicted. This is already covered in the applicable Wikipedia articles.
The argument that the Federal Reserve had been "recently formed" at the time the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified is also blatant nonsense. The Amendment was ratified in February of 1913. The Federal Reserve System was not even created until December of 1913.
And the argument that the Amendment is a "direct contradiction" of the Constitution is tantamount to a tax protester argument that somehow the federal income tax is unconstitutional. And there is no rule of constitutional law that says that an amendment to the constitution somehow cannot "directly contradict" the original provisions of the constitution. To argue otherwise would be to show a basic misunderstanding of how constitutional amendments work. Famspear ( talk) 01:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Besides the unsourced paragraphs that don't meet the new inline citation requirements, the article mainly cites primary sources and is filled with original research—as noted in the FAC some fifteen years ago! A cite to a case can be used for basic information about a case, but cannot establish that something is a "consitutional argument" used by a "tax protestor". If there are no secondary sources, I would say it's not relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia at all. BD2412 or anyone else may fix it but otherwise it needs GAR. ( t · c) buidhe 02:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition to being rather uncited, this 2007 listing is mostly "OR/SYNTH from US legal code & court cases", in the words of Hog Farm. Thus, the article may violate GA criteria 2b) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)