A conversation with Grok in relation to issue of whether the US declared bankruptcy in1933.

No, the United States was not declared bankrupt in the 1930s. The notion that it was stems from a misinterpretation of economic and legislative events during the Great Depression, particularly around 1933, but no formal bankruptcy declaration—akin to what a corporation or individual undergoes—ever occurred. Sovereign nations don’t "declare bankruptcy" in the legal sense because they aren’t subject to bankruptcy courts like private entities; instead, they may default on debts or restructure finances, neither of which happened to the U.S. in the 1930s. Let’s unpack this.

The 1933 Context

The claim often ties to two key events: the Emergency Banking Act and House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR-192), both enacted in 1933 amid the Depression:

Emergency Banking Act (March 9, 1933):

After FDR’s inauguration, a banking crisis saw mass withdrawals and bank failures. This act, passed days later, declared a national bank holiday, closed insolvent banks, and allowed the Treasury to reorganize the system with federal backing.

Why Not Bankruptcy: This was a stabilization measure, not a bankruptcy filing. The U.S. government didn’t liquidate assets or cede control to creditors—it used its authority to prop up banks, injecting liquidity via the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Federal Reserve. The nation’s finances weren’t "wound up"; they were rebooted.

HJR-192 (June 5, 1933):

This resolution suspended the gold standard, making U.S. currency fiat (not backed by gold) and voiding "gold clauses" in contracts requiring payment in gold. It aimed to boost money supply and prevent hoarding during deflation.

Misinterpretation: Some claim this was a bankruptcy because it altered debt obligations—creditors couldn’t demand gold, only dollars. Conspiracy narratives (e.g., tied to the "U.S. as a corporation" idea) assert this was an admission of insolvency, handing control to foreign bankers or the Federal Reserve. But legally, it was a monetary policy shift, upheld by the Supreme Court in the Gold Clause Cases (1935), not a bankruptcy proceeding.

Sovereign Finances in the 1930s

Debt Situation: The U.S. had significant debt from World War I (about $25 billion by 1930), and the Depression slashed tax revenue, pushing the deficit higher (federal debt rose from 16% of GDP in 1929 to 40% by 1933). But the government never stopped paying its obligations. It issued Treasury bonds and raised funds, maintaining creditworthiness.

No Default: Unlike nations like Germany (which defaulted on reparations) or Argentina (later examples), the U.S. didn’t miss bond payments or seek creditor forgiveness. A sovereign default—failure to pay debts—didn’t happen, let alone a formal bankruptcy.

Comparison: Bankruptcy involves a court process (e.g., Chapter 9 for U.S. municipalities), but no such mechanism exists for a nation under U.S. or international law then or now. The IMF and World Bank, which later helped restructure sovereign debt, didn’t exist until 1944.

Origin of the Claim

The "bankruptcy" idea often links to fringe theories—like the U.S. becoming a corporation in 1871 (which we debunked) or the Federal Reserve seizing control in 1933. HJR-192’s line about "discharging public debts" is twisted to suggest insolvency, but it meant expanding currency, not erasing national liability. No congressional record, FDR speech, or credible historian (e.g., Schlesinger, Friedman) labels this a bankruptcy. The U.S. economy recovered by the late 1930s, bolstered by New Deal spending and war production, without a debt collapse.

Verdict

The U.S. was not declared bankrupt in the 1930s. It faced a severe financial crisis, took drastic measures to stabilize, and adjusted its monetary system, but it never entered a legal or practical state of bankruptcy. Sovereign nations manage crises differently—no judge banged a gavel to liquidate America. If you’ve got a specific source pushing the 1930s bankruptcy angle, I can dissect it further!

Anons V Shills

>>22887704

>she's to blame

So, it has nothing to do with the writers, producers, directors etc?

>>22887726

Is the a specific stature requiring individuals to pay income tax?

Yes, in the United States, there is a specific statute requiring individuals to pay income tax. The foundational legal authority is found in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), specifically Title 26 of the United States Code. The key provision is Section 1, which imposes an income tax on individuals. Here’s how it breaks down:

The Statute

26 U.S.C. § 1: Titled "Tax imposed," this section establishes the federal income tax on the taxable income of individuals. It states:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual… a tax determined in accordance with the following table…"

The section then provides tax rates, which vary by income level and filing status (e.g., single, married filing jointly). The rates and brackets are periodically adjusted by Congress, but the obligation to pay is constant.

Definition of Taxable Income: Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions. Gross income is broadly defined in Section 61 as "all income from whatever source derived," including wages, salaries, interest, dividends, and more, unless explicitly exempted (e.g., certain gifts under Section 102).

Filing Requirement: Section 6012 mandates that individuals with income above a certain threshold must file a tax return, triggering the tax obligation. For example:

"Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount…"

Legal Backing

Constitutional Authority: The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, underpins this statute:

"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."

Before this, direct taxes had to be apportioned by population (Article I, Section 9), making income taxes tricky. The amendment cleared the way for statutes like Section 1.

Enforcement: Section 6151 requires payment:

"When a return of tax is required under this title… the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax…"

The IRS enforces this via Section 6201 (assessment authority) and Section 7201 (penalties for evasion).

Historical Context

The modern income tax began with the Revenue Act of 1913, enacted post-16th Amendment, and has evolved through various laws into today’s IRC, codified in 1954 and amended since. Section 1 has been consistently upheld as the statutory basis for taxing individuals.

Addressing Misconceptions

Some argue the tax is voluntary or lacks a specific law, citing IRS language about a "voluntary compliance system." This refers to self-reporting (you calculate and pay without prior demand), not optional payment. Courts have repeatedly rejected such claims—e.g., United States v. Schiff (1980) affirmed the IRC’s authority, and Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916) upheld the 16th Amendment’s scope. No credible legal challenge has overturned the individual income tax obligation.

In Short

Yes, 26 U.S.C. § 1 is the specific statute requiring individuals to pay income tax on their taxable income, backed by the 16th Amendment and enforced through related IRC provisions. It’s been in place for over a century and applies to U.S. citizens and residents with income above exemptions. If you’re digging into a specific angle—like exemptions or enforcement—let me know, and I’ll zoom in!

>>22887726

By true definition of ratification, that is fulfilling the lawful requirements from the requisite number of states, was the 16th amendment lawfully ratified?

The question of whether the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified "by the true definition of ratification"—meaning it met the constitutional requirements for approval by the requisite number of states—has been debated, particularly by tax protesters and skeptics. However, based on historical records, legal proceedings, and the official actions of the U.S. government, the amendment is considered lawfully ratified under the U.S. Constitution. Let’s break this down.

Constitutional Requirements for Ratification

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment requires:

Proposal by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate (or a constitutional convention, not used here).

Ratification by three-fourths of the states’ legislatures (or conventions, though legislatures are standard).

In 1913, with 48 states in the Union, three-fourths meant 36 states needed to ratify.

Ratification involves each state legislature voting to approve the exact text proposed by Congress, then notifying the federal government, typically via the Secretary of State, who certifies the process once the threshold is met.

The 16th Amendment Process

Proposal: On July 12, 1909, Congress passed the amendment: "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." It cleared the House (318-14) and Senate (77-0), exceeding the two-thirds requirement.

Ratification Timeline: States began ratifying in 1909. By February 3, 1913, the 36th state (Delaware) approved it, hitting the three-fourths mark. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Philander C. Knox certified it as ratified, declaring it part of the Constitution.

Official Count

Historical records show 42 states ratified by 1913, though only 36 were needed:

Alabama (1909) through Wyoming (1913), with key dates like Kentucky (1910), Illinois (1910), and New York (1911).

Six states (Connecticut, Florida, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia) didn’t ratify or rejected it, but their dissent didn’t block the three-fourths majority.

Challenges to Ratification

Critics, like Bill Benson in his 1985 book The Law That Never Was, argue the 16th Amendment wasn’t lawfully ratified due to alleged irregularities:

Textual Variations: Some states’ resolutions had minor errors—misspellings, punctuation differences, or wording tweaks (e.g., "income" vs. "incomes"). Benson claimed these invalidated their votes.

Procedural Flaws: Allegations include states not following their own legislative rules, like missing quorum votes or improper certification.

Timing Issues: Some say Knox certified prematurely, ignoring discrepancies.

Benson’s research, based on state archives, suggests fewer than 36 states "properly" ratified, naming Kentucky (vote miscounted), Ohio (not a state until 1953, he argued), and others as defective.

Legal and Historical Counterarguments

The U.S. government, courts, and scholars dismiss these challenges:

Certification Authority: Knox reviewed state submissions and, on advice from the Solicitor General, accepted them despite minor errors. Article V doesn’t demand perfect uniformity—just approval of the substance. The Supreme Court later upheld this in Leser v. Garnett (1922) for the 19th Amendment, ruling clerical errors don’t void ratification unless they change meaning.

1/2

>>22887863

2/2

State Sovereignty: Each state determines its ratification process. Federal courts don’t second-guess state legislatures’ internal rules (e.g., United States v. Sprague, 1931).

Judicial Affirmation: In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 16th Amendment’s validity and the income tax it authorized, implicitly endorsing its ratification. Later cases like United States v. Thomas (1986) rejected Benson’s claims as "frivolous," noting Congress and Knox’s certification settled the matter.

Practical Acceptance: For over a century, the amendment has been enforced—taxes collected, laws passed (e.g., IRC Section 1)—without a successful legal reversal.

Was It "Lawfully Ratified"?

By the "true definition" of ratification—meeting Article V’s three-fourths threshold—the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified:

36 States Achieved: Official records, preserved by the National Archives, show 36 states approved by February 3, 1913. Knox’s certification on February 25, 1913, sealed it.

Substance Over Form: Minor discrepancies didn’t alter the amendment’s intent, and courts have ruled such issues don’t derail ratification.

No Reversal: No state rescinded approval before certification, and no credible evidence of fraud or coercion has overturned the count.

Skeptics’ arguments hinge on technicalities, but the process adhered to Article V’s requirements as understood then and now. Congress proposed, 36+ states ratified, and the Secretary of State certified—fulfilling the lawful steps.

Conclusion

Yes, the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified under the Constitution’s rules. While critics raise questions, no court or authoritative body has invalidated it, and it’s functioned as law since 1913.

>>22887849

Nice to see an old meme in the wild.

o7

>>22887853

>>22887871

According to Title 26 of the CFR - IRS, how is income defined and does the result of physical and mental labor while lawfully employed fall under this definition?

Let’s examine how "income" is defined under Title 26 of the U.S. Code (the Internal Revenue Code, or IRC) and its associated regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and whether the result of physical and mental labor while lawfully employed falls under that definition.

Definition of Income in Title 26

The IRC provides the statutory basis for income taxation, and its regulations in Title 26 of the CFR elaborate on those rules. The starting point is 26 U.S.C. § 61, titled "Gross income defined," which states:

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items…"

This broad definition explicitly includes "compensation for services" as a category of taxable income, with no distinction based on the nature of the labor (physical or mental).

The corresponding regulation, 26 CFR § 1.61-1, reinforces this:

"Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law. Gross income includes income realized in any form, whether in money, property, or services. Income may be realized, therefore, in the form of services, meals, accommodations, stock, or other property, as well as in cash."

And 26 CFR § 1.61-2(a)(1) specifies:

"Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses… and all other items of compensation for personal services are included in gross income."

Does Physical and Mental Labor Fall Under This?

Yes, the result of physical and mental labor while lawfully employed falls squarely under this definition:

Compensation for Services: The IRC and CFR use "compensation for services" as an umbrella term, covering wages, salaries, and other payments for work performed. This encompasses both physical labor (e.g., construction, farming) and mental labor (e.g., teaching, programming), without differentiation. The focus is on the payment received, not the type of effort.

No Exclusion for Labor Type: Neither § 61 nor its regulations exclude earnings based on the physical or mental nature of the work. The phrase "from whatever source derived" is deliberately expansive, upheld by courts like Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955), which defined income as "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

Lawful Employment: If the employment is lawful—meaning it complies with applicable laws (e.g., not illegal activities)—the compensation is taxable unless a specific exemption applies (e.g., certain gifts under § 102 or municipal bond interest under § 103). Wages from lawful jobs, whether flipping burgers or drafting legal briefs, fit the definition.

Common Misconceptions

Some argue that wages for physical or mental labor aren’t "income" because they’re an equal exchange for effort, not a profit or gain. This stems from misreading early cases like Eisner v. Macomber (1920), which defined income narrowly for stock dividends ("gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined"). However:

The Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Smith (1945) clarified that § 61’s predecessor covered "any economic benefit" from labor, including wages.

26 CFR § 1.61-2 explicitly lists wages and salaries, debunking the "exchange" argument. Courts consistently reject claims that personal labor earnings are nontaxable (e.g., United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 3rd Cir. 1990).

Another claim references outdated regulations (e.g., 26 CFR (1939) editions) or "fundamental law" exemptions. The 1939 CFR, tied to the 1939 IRC, isn’t current law—Title 26 evolved with the 1954 and 1986 Codes. No regulation exempts labor earnings based on "sweat of the brow" under the modern framework.

Conclusion

Under 26 U.S.C. § 61 and 26 CFR § 1.61, income is defined broadly as "all income from whatever source derived," explicitly including "compensation for services." The result of physical and mental labor while lawfully employed—typically wages or salaries—falls under this definition as taxable gross income, unless a specific statutory exclusion applies. The IRC and CFR make no distinction between physical and mental effort; both are taxed as compensation. This has been the legal reality since the 16th Amendment and is enforced today, as of April 9, 2025.

>>22887726

Does the current US constitution, excluding amendments, differ in anyway to the original of 1787?

The current U.S. Constitution, excluding amendments, is identical to the original document as ratified in 1787 (and effective 1789) in terms of its text—Articles I through VII. No changes have been made to that core body through formal amendment or revision. However, there are nuances around its presentation and historical context that might seem like differences but aren’t substantive alterations to the ratified text. Let’s break it down.

The Original 1787 Constitution

Drafted: Written at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, May to September 1787.

Ratified: Signed on September 17, 1787, and ratified by nine states (the required threshold) by June 21, 1788, with full effect March 4, 1789.

Structure: Seven articles:

Legislative branch (Congress).

Executive branch (President).

Judicial branch (Supreme Court and inferior courts).

States’ relations and powers.

Amendment process.

Federal supremacy, oaths, debts.

Ratification process.

Text: About 4,543 words, including preamble and signatures, per the engrossed copy held at the National Archives.

Current Constitution (Excluding Amendments)

Textual Identity: The body of the Constitution—Articles I-VII—as printed today (e.g., in official U.S. Code publications or government websites) matches the 1787 engrossed text word-for-word, barring minor orthographic updates. No article has been repealed, rewritten, or added to via amendment.

Source: The engrossed parchment, penned by Jacob Shallus, is the authoritative original, preserved with faded ink but intact wording.

Potential Points of Confusion

While the core text hasn’t changed, here’s where perceived differences might arise:

Spelling and Punctuation:

18th-century English used variant spellings (e.g., "chuse" for "choose," "controul" for "control") and inconsistent capitalization (e.g., "Senate" vs. "senate"). Modern printings standardize these for readability—e.g., U.S. Government Publishing Office versions—but the meaning stays the same. This isn’t a legal change, just typographic convention.

Example: Article I, Section 2 originally says "chuse," now often printed as "choose." No substantive shift.

Signatures and Attestation:

The original ends with 39 delegates’ signatures and a note from George Washington. Some modern reprints omit these for brevity, but they’re part of the 1787 text and remain in official records.

Contextual Interpretation:

The original applied to 13 states; today, it governs 50. Provisions like Article IV, Section 3 (new states) enabled this expansion, but the text itself didn’t change—only its scope grew.

Slavery references (e.g., Article I, Section 2, Clause 3’s "three-fifths" rule) are still there, though rendered obsolete by the 13th Amendment. Excluding amendments, the wording persists.

Physical Document vs. Legal Text:

The engrossed copy has faded; some words (e.g., "Pensylvania") reflect 1787 spelling quirks. Digital or printed versions correct these visually but not legally.

Amendments’ Role

Your question excludes amendments, but it’s worth noting they’ve altered how the original operates—e.g., the 12th (1804) changed presidential elections, the 17th (1913) shifted Senate elections to popular vote. These modify application, not the Articles’ text itself. Without amendments, you’re left with the 1787 framework, unedited.

Verification

National Archives: The engrossed 1787 text is publicly viewable, transcribed as: "We the People of the United States…" through Article VII’s ratification clause. Compare it to today’s Constitution (pre-amendment section) in any legal source (e.g., 1 U.S.C.), and the wording aligns.

Congressional Records: No act has amended Articles I-VII directly; all changes are appended as amendments.

Conclusion

Excluding amendments, the current U.S. Constitution does not differ in substance from the 1787 original. The text of Articles I-VII remains unchanged—same words, same structure. Minor spelling or style updates in modern printings don’t alter its legal content. As of April 9, 2025, it stands as ratified, a testament to its endurance. If you’re eyeing a specific clause or theory about hidden edits, toss it my way, and I’ll check it out!

>>22888014

>Someone do a meme

Fill your boots, anon.

There are meme generators online that allow even the most retarded non-memer to create memes.

>>22888021

>hung

>>22888047

Are you aware of what type of rock that is?

It is an igneous rock, that is it is formed from the cooling of magma or lava. For a footprint to leave an impression such as that the foot would be exposed to temperatures of up to 1300°C (2372F).

>>22887833

Or not, but is the success or failure of a film the result of the actors?

>>22888081

> it no longer updates correctly or stops showing new images

This is many times as a direct result of 8Kun's servers, but how does that limit your ability to create a meme and post it in a bread? You can create and post a meme any time.

>>22888004

Images 3 and 4 look like they are straight out of the Road Runner.

>>22888078

>The Dire Wolf Species Has NOT Been Resurrected From Extinction!

Anon has been saying the same ever since it was notabled in 3 consecutive breads.

However, it is also not a hybrid. It is nothing more than genetically modified wolf.

>>22888137

>We've used the same kind of internal combustion engine for almost 100 years.

Due to various forms of protectionism.

Patents are bought and shelved or the inventor dies under suspicious circumstances.

>>22888280

>>22888323

Anon likes shitty music

Anon demands more women's protests