I don't say that the income tax is unconstitutional, just how it is applied by the IRS and the courts, which is true and a fact, not an opinion. I don't say that the law is unconstitutional. I say the law is fine as it is and is only not recognized and practiced correctly and that's a fact, not an opinion. I agree that we can say that the courts have ruled the tax constitutional, but that's not my argument. Perhaps we need to word it something like "The courts have ruled that the constitution is being applied correctly, but that is just their opinion and it is open to question. The laws are available for one's own research to come to your own conclusion." When the courts trounce upon the constitution, it does not make their opinion count more than ours and it is up to us to challenge them and their rulings to stay in line with the law. The courts have a way of ruling something but not ever pointing to the statute that makes it so, and that's something people should be aware of and to look it up themself. So, you see, they are already ruling the way I am talking about, but they don't put that in the ruling. For instance, if you look at any ruling on income taxes, look for where the judge states the liability to file and pay an income tax is in the IRC. You won't find it because no such liability exists under Section 1 of the IRC which is the only part on Income Taxes. The IRC must define income in order for it to be understood what is meant and as you can see it isn't defined anywhere. However, we can find that in Supreme Court decisions that it is defined as "gain or profit" and that the 16th amendment didn't give the goverment any more power than they had before, because their hands are tied when it comes to applying a direct tax. Again, I am not challenging whether the legsilative, judicial and executive branches all agree that the law is constitutional, only that it is applied correctly and none of them state as much. That's why you'll find my statements accurate. Now, what I need to do is find a neutral way of saying it and perhaps I could use some help in that area. We are here to to challenge the interpretation of the law and to show what the law says today. Looking forward to your help. Thanks.  BB69 

 There are many controversial topics in Wikipedia and with most of them there is a way to present both views. The problem in this particular case may be your phrasing. You say, for example, it's a fact that the income tax is unconstitutional. That is not a fact, that is an argument or an opinion. To say that the law is constitutional is arguably also an opinion. To say, however, that the courts have ruled that the income tax is constitutional is a fact - you can look it up and verify it. Its only their opinion that the law is constitutional and its only your opinion that it is not. The fact is, however, that the constitution gives the judiciary the power to determine whether something is constitutional or not, so their opinion counts more than yours or mine. The courts may change their opinion on this matter some day, but until they do it is important that someone reading the article on income tax understands clearly how the law is interpreted today. If you state two opinions and don't make it clear that the legislative (i.e., Congress), judicial and executive (the Treasury and the IRS) branches all agree that the law is constitutional, you are crafting a misleading article. No one is trying to prevent you from stating a position against the income tax (and in fact there is an entire article on tax protesters in Wikipedia), but the statements must be accurate and neutral. We are not here to change the interpretation of the law, just to explain it as it is today. We can explain the arguments against the prevailing interpretation as long as it is accurately done. I hope this clarifies my thoughts on the issue.  DS1953 talk  
 User pageDiscussion