Being that the 16th amendment was never ratified, what does that mean for the American people & income taxes?

16th amendment ratified. judge easterbrook explained argument quite well:
"1. thomas tax protester, , 1 of arguments did not [**3] need file tax returns because sixteenth amendment not part of constitution. not ratified, thomas insists, repeating argument of w. benson & m. beckman, law never (1985). benson , beckman review documents concerning states' ratification of sixteenth amendment , conclude 4 states ratified sixteenth amendment; insist official promulgation of amendment secretary of state knox in 1913 therefore void.

benson , beckman did not discover anything; rediscovered secretary knox considered in 1913. thirty-eight states ratified sixteenth amendment, , thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification secretary of state. (minnesota notified secretary orally, , additional states ratified later; consider secretary knox considered.) 4 instruments repeat language of sixteenth amendment congress approved it. others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, , spelling. text congress transmitted states was: "the congress shall have power lay , collect taxes on incomes, whatever [**4] source derived, without apportionment among several states, , without regard census or enumeration." many of instruments neglected capitalize "states," , capitalized other words instead. instrument illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; instrument missouri substituted "levy" "lay"; instrument washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

thomas insists because states did not approve same text, amendment did not go effect. secretary knox considered argument. solicitor of department of state drew list of errors in instruments , -- taking account both triviality of deviations , treatment of earlier amendments had experienced more substantial problems -- advised secretary authorized declare amendment adopted. secretary did so.

although thomas urges take view of several state courts agreement on literal text may make legal document effective, hn1the supreme court follows "enrolled bill rule." if legislative document authenticated in regular form [**5] appropriate officials, court treats document adopted. field v. clark, 143 u.s. 649, 36 l. ed. 294, 12 s. ct. 495 (1892). principle equally applicable constitutional amendments. see leser v. garnett, 258 u.s. 130, 66 l. ed. 505, 42 s. ct. 217 (1922), treats conclusive declaration of secretary of state nineteenth amendment had been adopted. in united states v. foster, 789 f.2d. 457 462-463 n.6 (7th cir. 1986), relied on leser, inconsequential nature of objections in face of 73-year acceptance of effectiveness of sixteenth amendment, reject claim similar thomas's. see coleman v. miller, 307 u.s. 433, 83 l. ed. 1385, 59 s. ct. 972 (1939) (questions ratification of amendments may nonjusticiable). secretary knox declared enough states had ratified sixteenth amendment. secretary's decision [*1254] not transparently defective. need not decide when, if ever, such decision may reviewed in order know secretary knox's decision beyond review.
"
united states v. thomas, 788 f.2d 1250, 1253-1254 (7th cir. ill.
1986)

should noted co-author of book discovered alleged defects in ratification process criminally convicted , imprisoned wilful failure file income taxes, , used argument unsuccessfully in defense.

mick t seem have fundamental misunderstanding of supreme court saying. when saying 16th amendment gave congress no new powers saying power tax income given them article section viii of constitution. 16th amendment merely removed distinction between direct tax (tax on profits property) , indirect (tax on wages or professional receipts) purposes of income tax. assertion income refers gains has no legal basis. springer v. united states, 102 u.s. 586 (1881) upheld basis federal income tax. springer refused pay income tax on professional earnings attorney arguing direct tax violated constitution. supreme court said in springer, still mandatory authority, "it not tax on "whole . . . personal estate" of individual, on income, gains, , profits during year, may have been small part of personal estate, , in cases have been so. classification lends no support argument of plaintiff in error." springer v. united states, 102 u.s. 586, 603 (u.s. 1881). went on conclude "that direct taxes, within meaning of constitution, capitation taxes, expressed in instrument, , taxes on real estate; , tax of plaintiff in error complains within category of excise or duty. springer v. united states, 102 u.s. 586, 602 (u.s. 1881). pollock case necessitated 16th amendment distinguished springer noting case dealt tax on professional receipts considered excise or impost , indirect tax, pollock addressing tax on income property, court recognized merely being tax on property itself, making direct. without 16th amendment government tax wages without apportionment, taxing profits property (rents etc) prohibited.

Politics & Government Politics Next