"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

The use of the word "taxes" within this Clause serves as a distinct reference to the category of 'Direct Taxes', which also includes "Assessments". This Clause contains bearing reference to the two (2) categories of established "Taxes", with those being the 'Direct' [requiring apportionment] and 'Indirect' [requiring uniformity] methods of taxation. This Clause begins by first establishing the Congress the general power to tax (being that this was a grave issue that existed with the originating Articles of Confederation, as the federal government was established under very limited and constrictive taxing powers; the U.S. Constitution was Ratified after the Repeal of the Articles of Confederation to resolve this learned issue), although there are conditions to be upheld, when doing so, regardless of the class of taxation.

It is also important to realize that within this enumerated power, the requirements for federal taxes are also established for the sole purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. With this in mind do you consider the federal government using tax revenue to bail out failing private businesses or to purchase their bad debt, issuing funding to other countries and to special interest groups, as well as to organizations such as the United Nations, as keeping within the established boundaries for levying federal taxes?

Besides the obvious fact that the above 'Comment' fails to include any mention of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, while instead pointlessly making a strange reference pertaining to the cited Clause not banning such 'Direct Taxes' and incorrectly quoting this Clause as "Census of Enumeration", when it should be "census or enumeration", this 'Comment' serves no purpose other then to inform the reader that direct forms of taxation have been established for within the U.S. Constitution itself. However, never actually elaborating on exactly what this means.

The reason that the above 'Comment' is strange is because the U.S. Constitution does not make references regarding what the federal government cannot or may not do, but only to what they are empowered to do, through their enumerated powers as so established for and of which consists of a total of nineteen, though only eighteen of these established powers pertain to the United States of America, as one of those enumerated powers pertains to our Nations surrounding seas and oceans. This effectively means that if the U.S. Constitution does not make a stipulation for a specific matter then the federal government may not establish presumption over it, except in following through with the Amending process as prescribed for within Article V. For the federal government to presume powers or to self-proclaim empowerments not specifically prescribed [enumerated] for within the U.S. Constitution is a nothing else but a 'de facto' act; meaning that any such assumed laws may appear to have the force and effect of law, though in reality are without any law and are wanting and thereby are unconstitutional. There is one exception to this, which is only permitted within the Seat of the federal government [meaning the District of Columbia, not to exceed 10-square miles in size] as provided or within Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, whereas the federal government is permitted to exercise slight latitude, while still maintaining the indented spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, ..."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4

Now realizing that "shall" means "must", thereby creating a requirement, we can therefore affirm that after a quick review of both Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, that all 'Direct Taxes', specifically 'Capitation Taxes', must be apportioned in a proportion which is in accordance with the most current census [meaning a tally of each individual states population] amongst all of the several states of the Union. In reflecting on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, we realize that all 'Indirect Taxes' are to be established so as to be 'uniform', which means that everybody pays the exact same amount given unto their individual realized amounts of whatever the subject of the tax is, i.e. 'Taxable Income', this is accomplished with the Internal Revenue Code through a ratable "wage" bracket method, [although, 'employee' "withholding allowances" provides 'employers' to withhold their 'employees' 'wages' using either a percentage withholding or "wage" bracket withholding method].

With this in mind and in realizing that the Federal Income Tax has been established as a uniform tax, as it is a form of an Excise Tax, thereby existing within the 'Indirect' category of taxes. Do you believe the Federal Income Tax to legitimately be "uniform" as it is so required to be, (i.e. two individual adult males living within California earning the same exact amount of 'wages', though one is married owns a house, has three children, donates to charity, and it is a traveling salesmen; while the other is single, has no dependents, rents an apartment, and goes to college part-time, while claiming certain federally granted medical benefits)?

Also extremely interesting to note is the distinctive use of the specific reference to the several states of the Union ["several states which may be included within this union"], within Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. As compared to that as prescribed within Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which specifically refers only to the "United States" as pertaining to all forms of Indirect Taxation, ["shall be uniform throughout the United States"]. This distinction will become further apparent in reviewing the Preamble to and Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, and Amendment X of the Bill of Rights.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Amendment XVI

To begin, "Census of Enumeration" should read as "census or enumeration". Both Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 do not, nor ever has pertained to 'income taxes' and no Amendment XVI did not eliminate any other existing Clause within the U.S. Constitution, nor could it if it wanted to, because to do so would destroy the established fundamentals pertaining to our constitutionally guaranteed form of Republicanism; thereby essentially rendering it a broken contract. What Amendment XVI did do was to legally empower the Congress to consider 'incomes' under taxation and to clarify exactly how 'incomes' were to be treated as a class of taxation within the category of 'Indirect Taxes'. Which interestingly enough is a form of an 'Excise Tax', of which exists within the category of 'Indirect Taxes'. If Amendment XVI was truly addressing one's remuneration, the subject of this Amendment would have been 'Capitation Taxes' and not 'incomes', period.

"When legislating for the states of the Union, under the authority of a power granted to the federal government in the Constitution, Congress must stay strictly within the bounds of the power thus granted and limited. However, when legislating for places where the US is the sovereign, Congress may do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution."
Downes v. Bidwel, 182 US 244 (1901), and Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 674 (1945)

"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude what "income" is, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."
United States Supreme Court, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

Let's break this Amendment down into fragments and have a look at it, shall we...

Here we realize that Congress is given power to establish taxation, specifically upon 'incomes'.

Now we are informed it matters not what the source of the 'incomes' actually is, Congress shall still have the power to lay a tax upon 'incomes' from those sources; keeping in mind of course that this is in accordance with any perspective tax laws, i.e. if the tax law mentions only 'incomes' derived from specific sources are taxable then in actual legal application, only 'incomes' from those stipulated sources would be taxable. Also it is important to realize that the "source" is most likely distinct and different then the realized 'gain' or 'profit' [i.e. stocks, rents, interest, etc.]; however, the received 'benefit' or 'privilege' is very likely to be the same as the "source" [i.e. federal employment, employed by a federal corporation, trade, or partnership, participation within BATFE, railroad, and mining occupations, etc.].

This portion is making it exceptionally clear as to what category of taxation 'incomes' belongs to. Meaning that either one of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 or Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to 'incomes', therefore since 'incomes' cannot exist within the category of 'Direct Taxes', it can only exist within the category of 'Indirect Taxes'. "Tax Professionals" will often vainly argue that Amendment XVI created a new method, form, or category of taxation, which they like to refer to as any one of the following fictitious categories: "Direct-Unapportioned", "Direct-Uniform", or "Hybrid" Tax. SCOTUS has ruled time after time that the XVI Amendment created no new tax, nor Repealed or nullified any prior existing Clause within the U.S. Constitution. Amendment XVI, simply placed an already existing tax back into its correct category, where it had always rightfully existed and inherently belonged. Therefore, any theory to the contrary is outright frivolous.

"The Sixteenth Amendment; although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..."
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

"Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states."
...
"The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses in the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."
United States Supreme Court, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

"[T]he [XVI] Amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income."
F. Morse Hubbard Treasury Department legislative draftsman (1943)

"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916)."
United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 405 U.S. 505 (1988)

Therefore, this Amendment is stating that (1) the Congress may place a tax upon 'incomes', (2) 'incomes' regardless of the source, and in accordance with established law are taxable and that, (3) 'incomes' are required to be uniform, not apportioned and therefore 'incomes' are an 'Indirect Tax'.

In other words so as to legally prescribe that 'incomes' are to exist within the category of 'Indirect Taxes', either while being in the form 'Duty' or 'Excise' tax, i.e. a tax uniformly assessed upon one's engaged 'activities' or 'privileges'. If in fact Amendment XVI were addressing one's remuneration for time, labor, or barter then the obvious class of tax within this Amendment to be signified and addressed would have been 'Capitation Taxes' not an obscured word not prior referenced or accounted for within the Constitution, that being 'incomes' or now referred to as 'Income Taxes', which derives from the term 'Income Duty'. Most notable is the following, 'incomes' was made into a relevant term within the 'Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909' so as to mean a "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," inclusive of the "profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets", as stated so clearly within the Annotated Constitution.

Now in realizing the epiphany that your commonly earned public or private remuneration is most likely not the 'incomes' being referred to within Amendment XVI, the IRS would have a bit of a difficult and perplexing time trying to explain how you received any 'income' at all. Being as Amendment XVI is referring to taxing the 'incomes' obtained from any source, whatever. In other words, if your remuneration is the source, it can't be the 'incomes' being referred to within the XVI Amendment, now can it? With obvious exception to certain federally connected employments, regardless if they are public or private.

The above 'Comment' is only semi-correct in regards to only one aspect, that the Congress did have all the taxing power they needed. This was until the Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust SCOTUS ruling dissolved it, which is why Amendment XVI was Ratified at the bequest of President William H. Taft in 1909 [quoted below], (not that this case was at all relative to one's remuneration for time, labor, or barter). Ergo, the Pollock case had absolutely nothing to do with federal taxation placed upon a private individuals time, labor, or barter as these were not the issues being addressed within this case, the issues of this case were pertaining to 'Excises' and 'Duties' [both 'Indirect Taxes'], specifically 'incomes' acquired from rental properties (i.e. realized 'gains' and 'profits').

"I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population."
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE [Pages 3344 - 3345], June 16, 1909

Also, it is important to note that the original name of the Federal Income Tax or Internal Revenue Code or Income Tax or IRC, [et al], was "The Tariff Act", also the "Underwood Tariff"; a 'Tariff' is essentially a 'Duty Tax', which is a tax placed upon imported commodities and the like.

----
Message of the President
To the Congress of the United States:

I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949 and providing for reorganizations in the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Department of the Treasury.
...
"The task of collecting the internal revenue has expanded enormously within the past decade. This expansion has been occasioned by the necessary additional taxation brought on by World War II and essential post-war programs. In fiscal year 1940, tax collections made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue were slightly over 51/3 billions of Dollars; in 1951, they totaled almost 501/2 billions. In 1940, 19 million tax returns were filed; in 1951, 82 million. In 1940, there were 22,000 employees working for the Bureau; in 1951, there were 57,000."
...
Harry S. Truman.
The White House, January 14, 1952.
[5 USC APPENDIX - REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1 OF 1952]
----

For brevity the following are the census counts for: 1940 -'131,954,000', 1951 - '153,982,000', and 2007 - '301,621,157'. There was a mere resulting population growth of '22,028,000' people during the 11-year span from 1940-1951 and a near double population growth of '147,639,157' people during the 56-year span from 1951-2007. On average the IRS states a total of '130,910,333' Individual Income Tax Returns are now filed annually [figures averaged from: 2003-2005].

To quickly encapsulate, in 1940 with a total population of 131,954,000 people, 19-million Individual Tax Returns were filed [equal to 14% of the population]; in 1951 with a total population of 153,982,000 people, a total of 82-million Individual Income Tax Returns were filed [53% of the population]; and in 2007 with a total population of 301,621,157 people, a total of 131-million Individual Income Tax Returns were filed [43-percent of the population]. This then raises the question as to how does one successfully explain how the quadrupling in Individual Income Tax Returns filed occurred (increasing from 19-million to 82-million), meanwhile the Nation's population itself only grew by 22-million people? Are we to believe that the answer simply derives from the creation of 63-million brand new jobs that came into existence for those prior years, 63-million [ranging between 40-48% of the population] unemployed citizens? To believe that of course one would also have to believe that nearly 1/3 of the entire population of America was either unemployed or was unable to meet the IRS 'Income Tax' filing requirements, during this same time period. Which of course means that 2/3 of the population had to support 1/3 of the population for approximately 11-years! Though how is this even remotely plausible? Being that in today's times we are struggling to support even our own families! Did credit cards even exist back then?

Another noteworthy anomaly for consideration is that even though the total population, while virtually doubling between the span from 1951-2007 [a 51% resulting increase of 147,639,157 people], resulted in only an Individual Income Tax Return filing increase of 48,910,333 [a 37% increase], (increasing from 82-million to 131-million Individual Income Tax Returns being filed annually). Most obviously these numbers just do not "add" up. This means that to date annually 170,710,824 people do not file Individual Income Tax Returns with the IRS [57% of the population], respectively. To further clarify, one-percent of the total population in 2007 is equal to: 3,016,212 individuals.

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

The Congress has been established to make all laws, which are both necessary and proper to thereby enable them to effectively carry out their [vested] powers of which are specifically enumerated to them throughout the U.S. Constitution, keeping in mind that at all times such established laws are to remain within the confined intentions of Fundamental Law and the spirited foretaste of a free society entitled to inalienable rights, which includes the protection of life and property.

The context of the word "taxes" within Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, is meant to be a straightforward reference to all classes of tax which exist with the "Direct" category of taxation and thereby subsequently is meant to exclude all forms of "Indirect Taxation". 'Income Taxes' exist specifically within the class of 'Excise Taxes' and therefore are within the category of "Indirect Taxes". Therefore it is obvious and apparent that the only requirements for all taxes levied upon 'Incomes' is that: (1) they be uniform, (2) that they exist within the "United States", and (3) that their proceeds be used "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States", [Article I, Section 8, Clause 1].

The U.S. Constitution created a Republican form of federal government which consists entirely of enumerated powers. Knowing and understanding the law is your individual responsibility as a citizen or resident of the United States of America and quite contrary to the assertions of the myriad of misguided "Tax Professionals", it does not require a team of highly trained tax attorneys, CPA's, or for that matter other such accountants, to instruct you on the wisdoms and justness of a given law. Otherwise such an almighty law it not at all practical, while in reality serves no truthful or positive purpose, whatsoever. Perhaps, you might consider pondering as to what good are the laws of our Nation, if you are unable to understand them for yourself, in such a situation how could one ever become legally cognizant to laws which are utterly superfluous, (notwithstanding after the fact)? How could any such laws ever be foundationally upheld?

To begin this portion let us have a brief look at IRS Publication 2105, which in part states the following:

"The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on February 3, 1913, states, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment, and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax."

In actuality, Amendment XVI uses the term 'incomes' not 'income'. Regardless, here we have a clear admission on the part of the IRS themselves, stating that the Internal Revenue Code is reliant upon this Amendment in addition to the U.S. Constitution itself, at least to a noticeable degree at the very minimum. Thus, in respects to Amendment XVI we can rightfully deduct that if the scope of it, meaning that if Amendment XVI 'incomes' are not applicable to you (similarly as to how Amendment XVIII did not have any direct impact up dedicated non-drinkers), then neither is the Internal Revenue Code, correct?

To begin, being that we have previously addressed this in the foregoing, we will simply note that it is an indisputable fact that 'Income' is not "shorthand for "money coming in", nowhere in law is such a definition to be found or referenced. Any other perspective on this issue is itself outright frivolous. At best it could only be stated properly that such is to mean qualifying gains, profits, or monies that has come in.

It is monumental to realize that Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code is respective only to that which is 'taxable income' [26 USC Section 63]. Therefore, if one has received such 'income' from Constitutionally taxable sources of which exceed the allotted exemption amount, then they are for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax a bona fide 'taxpayer' [26 USC 7701(a)(14)]; otherwise they are for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax a 'non-taxpayer'.

Additionally, there are a few realizations in regards to the "separate liability for failure to withhold" claim as quoted from the above 'Comment', being that the related Section is found within 26 USC 7202 and it only pertains to a limited class of 'persons' as defined within 26 USC Section 7343, and finally, 26 USC 7202 is nowhere listed within the 'Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules', therefore the enforcement of 26 USC Section 7202 is extremely limiting.

Regarding the issue pertaining to the non-mention of the word 'liable', throughout Subtitle A of 26 USC, with the only exception being Section 1461 which has only to do with 26 7701(a)(16) 'Withholding Agents'. The lack of this work is of importance being that many of the relevant requirements, penalties, and fines found throughout 26 USC Subtitle F use the following language: "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title". Therefore, while Subtitle A does meet the 'imposition' requirement, it fails in addressing the 'liability' requirement, in these many respects. In ignoring this paramount discrepancy, we might as well ignore other similar discrepancies, such as if 26 USC Section 1, happened to fail in mentioning the 'imposition' requirement.

"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability".
Boathe v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

This is entirely correct, 'taxable income' is all 'income' minus all deductions that an individual might be entitled to receive as so stipulated within the Internal Revenue Code, itself. The result of this equation is the legal basis for determining your 'Income Tax' liability as reported by yourself, so far as to whether or not you are a qualifying individual for the purposes of the federal income tax. The IRS uses the W-2 'Information' Form, which was sent to them by your employer to verify the figures reported under penalties of perjury upon the face of your IRS 1040 Individual Income Tax Return by yourself.

Although it is important to bear in mind that a definition or 'legalese', 'terms of art', etc., are simply that, specialized definitions, which no longer carry their common English meaning. Under the 'Rules of Statutory Construction', such specialized definitions thereafter carry only that specific definition as so written with that body of law, which may include not only that which is prescribed for within that definition, but all related classes as well, (i.e. a specialized definition which defines various types of carbonated soda pops would include other types or flavors of carbonated soda pops not specifically mentioned therein, though would be taken to ostracize [through purposeful exclusion] alcoholic beverages, sports drinks, health drinks, tonics, flavored drinking water, et al). Additionally, specialized definitions themselves have absolutely no legal standing to enforce any Section or establish any requirements within a specific body of law. Their sole purpose is to clarify the intention and scope of an established body of law.

We are fairly confident that you can determine for yourself that a non-resident alien, and a foreign business are entirely distinct than that a citizen, resident, or domestic business (which is why the former are addressed separately within the Internal Revenue Code), and that a laborer with a federal nexus is entirely different from a laborer that has none.

"[W]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words..."
Circuit City stores v. Adams, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001)

The above 'Comment' is not entirely correct or truthful, 26 USC Section 61 only includes 'incomes' of which are Constitutionally taxable, meaning that if the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence; in addition to supporting arguments within the 'Federalist Papers', then such tax is outright unconstitutional. Our Nations Founding Fathers abhorred Democracies; they were in opposition to all unfair and unjust forms of taxation which ultimately works to pave the pathway to assumption over another's property and freewill, such as: 'taxation without representation', the taking of life, liberty, or property without due process or fair compensation, and 'involuntary servitude' (with exceptions in the course of serving a prison sentence).

To further note, 'compensation' is defined within Black's Law Dictionary [3rd Edition] as: An indemnification; payment of damages; making amends; making whole; giving an equivalent or substitute of equal value. Therefore, "compensation for services" has no bearing on 'gains', 'profits', its use is meant to only ensure that an equal recovery of accrued or realized losses has or should occur. Moreover, 'services' as clarified within the Classification Act of 1923 [42 Stat. 1488], has to do with willful participation in governmental employment, such as serving in a public office, the uniformed services, federal instrumentality's or other federal associations or partnerships.

The Whiskey Rebellion was a transgression which had much more to do with allegations of biased and unfair taxation, ultimately leading to "tax protesting", being as large distilleries were taxed at a rate equal to approximately one-third less then small distilleries. Meanwhile, George Washington himself owned a large distillery; hence, you can see where it is that this path leads to, right? However, this being said are you personally aware of any "tax protesters" to date who do not pay the full purchase price for their alcoholic beverages? What about when they purchase fuel for their vehicle, pay their home utilities, make purchases at a privately owned store or restaurant, pay their parking citations or fines, pay their tobacco related taxes, pay their DMV license and registration fees? Are you aware of anybody whom "protests" these types of taxes?

So far as "tax protesting" or for that matter "tax denying" is concerned, it is not that American citizens and residents whom are living and working within the several states of the Union in exchange for remuneration of which is without any federal nexus are unlawfully protesting against federal income taxes. Such a stigmatic label is nothing more then an unimaginative attempt by so-called "Tax Professionals" to avoid the onslaught of truth, from bearing at hand factually based issues; by instead attempting to flagrantly paint the entire Tax Honesty Movement as social outcasts, whom dabble self-obsessively by floundering for fictionally created proverbial 'red-herrings'. No other such claim could be more wanting in truth.

The correct question to ponder is: are you an established subject of the 'Income Tax'? It is not that such aforementioned individuals are 'exempt' [as within the meaning of the law] from the Internal Revenue Code, rather it is that they are not the subjects of the Internal Revenue Code for the purposes of the activities they had (or still are) been engaged in. Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.

Finally, it is true the Framer's of our Nation really did not like "Tax Protesters", as has been correctly pointed out in the above 'Comment'. However, the issue at hand is not protesting valid tax laws. The issue at hand is for us each individually as well as collectively to realize what the tax laws are and who they pertain to. If the Internal Revenue Code was to be applied in the manner and fashion that "Tax Professionals" allege it to be, then it would be downright unconstitutional. Though this is not at all the case, the Internal Revenue Code is perfectly Constitutional. The problem is the widespread misapplication of it on the part of these same "Tax Professionals". Below is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, may this serve as both a reminder and a warning to us all...

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty... ...and what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned, from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson in writing to New York Senator William S. Smith on November 13th, 1787 in regards to 'Shays' Rebellion'