🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6vt0nj$223$1@netra.msu.montana.edu>,
	"Larry Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:
> M O'Neill wrote in message <36213b4a.7759144@news.concentric.net>...
>>On 7 Oct 1998 18:30:11 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>>
>>
>>sorry pal, the income tax is constitutional because the Supreme Court,
>>which under the constitution is the final arbiter of what is
>>constitutional, has ruled that it is.
> 
> Do you have a specific reference for that? I was under the distinct (but
> possibly incorrect) impression that the Supreme Court has never, in fact,
> ruled one way or the other on the income tax, and that it simply refuses to
> look at any real case involving it or the IRS as a whole (individual agents
> being another matter).

You are both wrong. Why don't you both do a little research?

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Taylor             Email: brtaylor@inreach.com            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| Like the ad says, at 300 dpi you can tell she's wearing a     |
| swimsuit. At 600 dpi you can tell it's wet. At 1200 dpi you   |
| can tell it's painted on. I suppose at 2400 dpi you can tell  |
| if the paint is giving her a rash. (So says Joshua R. Poulson)|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+