The King's Bench Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis >> 16th Amendment

North Carolina U.S. District Judge James C. Fox

As you decide whether to become more proactive in defense of your Sovereignty, consider what a sitting federal judge recently had to say -- on the record -- regarding the U.S. Constitution. In March of 2003, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, Donald Sullivan, an active duty Lt. Colonel, and Jeffrey Sullivan, his nephew -- an active duty Sp4 -- sued the government to prevent the application of the armed forces in Iraq unless and until the Congress declared war, in keeping with the war powers clauses of the Constitution. A hearing for a temporary restraining order was held before the Senior United States District Court Judge James C. Fox. (Note: the hearing was scheduled for March 21, 2003 without the knowledge that the war would start on March 20, 2003).

Copies of the hearing can be downloaded here:

• Cover Page
• Page 22
• Page 23
• Entire Document (650 KB PDF)

Remarkably, at one point, Judge Fox says - on the record - that the President and the Congress have been in collusion violating the war powers clause for a long time and that this long course of history has changed the Constitution. He said, "I think that it has occurred over a long period of time, and consequently, there is less hesitancy on the executive branch to preserve [the Constitution]. It's just like kids who break a rule the first 200 times and after a while they don't care; they don't acknowledge that the rule exists ... the course of conduct over a long period of time has advanced that collusion, if you will, between those two branches." (page 20).

Then, completely on his own initiative, Judge Fox brings up the income tax and offers it as another example of collusion between the President and the Congress that, because it has occurred over a long course of history, has changed the Constitution.

Judge Fox says, "If you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment... And nonetheless, I think it is fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever set it aside. Well, I've seen that -- I've seen somewhere a treatise on that, and I think it was -- I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred... Yet nonetheless, I'm sure no court's going to say that the 16th Amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason... I think there may be something analogous there vis a vis the continued practice of the Executive to have incursions and police actions or to commit the country to hostilities without the formal declaration of war" (pages 22-24).