\ COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SIXTEENTH
\

\ AMENDMENT WHICH IGNORED THE WORDING IN CERTIFIED
\

\ HISTORICAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS (MEMORANDUMS)
\

\ IN FAVOR OF WORDS AND LANGUAGE FOREIGN TO THE DOCUMENTS
\

\ In the case of U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 10 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated that " Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void. Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Knox considered in 1913." The content of this statement is difficult to deny. In fact, a bit further on the court says: "Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it." This is another statement that cannot be refuted. Then the court proceeds to delineate mistakes in wording committed by specific states — again true and indisputable facts. For in this instance the court has seen fit, and rightly so, to use the information contained in the certified historical memorandums issued by the Solicitor of the Secretary of State, Rueben C. Clark, on February 15, 1913 and February 20, 1913, to take the position which it has taken. It is therefore undeniable that the court's utilization of these documents establishes their authenticity and worth in this controversial matter.
\

\ In defense of Benson and Beckman, when they asserted that only four states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, they were basing their conclusions on various statements made by the Solicitor in the above-mentioned memorandums. In a memorandum from the Chief Clerk of the Office of the Solicitor dated February 15, 1913, the Solicitor makes the following statement at the bottom of page six: "In the certified copies of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the proposed 16th amendment, it appears that only four of these resolutions (those submitted by Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee, and New Mexico) have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress." And on page fifteen of this same document he states explicitly how the ratified copies of all the other states (thirty-three in all) containing various mistakes and errors had to be handled, acknowledging the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, as his final authority when he says: "...under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress." So by accepting the facts as stated that only four states correctly quoted the proposed amendment and that no states "under provisions of the Constitution" had authority to alter the proposed amendment, it is perfectly clear how Benson and Beckman would conclude that only four states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment.
\

\ Let us go on. Further in the court's determination, the defendant's position is given consideration. "Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier
\

\ COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SIXTEENTH
\

\ AMENDMENT WHICH IGNORED THE WORDING IN CERTIFIED
\

\ HISTORICAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS (MEMORANDUMS)
\

\ IN FAVOR OF WORDS AND LANGUAGE FOREIGN TO THE DOCUMENTS
\

\ In the case of U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 10 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated that " Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void. Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Knox considered in 1913." The content of this statement is difficult to deny. In fact, a bit further on the court says: "Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it." This is another statement that cannot be refuted. Then the court proceeds to delineate mistakes in wording committed by specific states — again true and indisputable facts. For in this instance the court has seen fit, and rightly so, to use the information contained in the certified historical memorandums issued by the Solicitor of the Secretary of State, Rueben C. Clark, on February 15, 1913 and February 20, 1913, to take the position which it has taken. It is therefore undeniable that the court's utilization of these documents establishes their authenticity and worth in this controversial matter.
\

\ In defense of Benson and Beckman, when they asserted that only four states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, they were basing their conclusions on various statements made by the Solicitor in the above-mentioned memorandums. In a memorandum from the Chief Clerk of the Office of the Solicitor dated February 15, 1913, the Solicitor makes the following statement at the bottom of page six: "In the certified copies of the resolutions passed by the legislatures of the several states ratifying the proposed 16th amendment, it appears that only four of these resolutions (those submitted by Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee, and New Mexico) have quoted absolutely accurately and correctly the 16th amendment as proposed by Congress." And on page fifteen of this same document he states explicitly how the ratified copies of all the other states (thirty-three in all) containing various mistakes and errors had to be handled, acknowledging the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, as his final authority when he says: "...under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress." So by accepting the facts as stated that only four states correctly quoted the proposed amendment and that no states "under provisions of the Constitution" had authority to alter the proposed amendment, it is perfectly clear how Benson and Beckman would conclude that only four states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment.
\

\ Let us go on. Further in the court's determination, the defendant's position is given consideration. "Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier
\