You’re right, Wikipedia is a terrible primary source, because it isn’t a primary source. So, while you should never reference it in a paper or dissertation, the sources it references are perfectly valid. The good news is, I’m not writing an essay or dissertation, and I don’t have to follow the correct rules for those. I did you the favor of clicking two links deeper (it took about a minute) and finding the information where they talk about all those cases that the judges totally threw so they could force you to pay illegal taxes. Now, I can’t make you turn that link purple, but if you do you might get the other side of that argument that you apparently haven’t stumbled across in your decades of examination. Good luck.
So, your assertion is that the IRS is a good source for information about the validity of the IRS? Case law doesn’t cover whether ratification actually happened, but rather that the courts are going with it.
You’re right, Wikipedia is a terrible primary source, because it isn’t a primary source. So, while you should never reference it in a paper or dissertation, the sources it references are perfectly valid. The good news is, I’m not writing an essay or dissertation, and I don’t have to follow the correct rules for those. I did you the favor of clicking two links deeper (it took about a minute) and finding the information where they talk about all those cases that the judges totally threw so they could force you to pay illegal taxes. Now, I can’t make you turn that link purple, but if you do you might get the other side of that argument that you apparently haven’t stumbled across in your decades of examination. Good luck.
So, your assertion is that the IRS is a good source for information about the validity of the IRS? Case law doesn’t cover whether ratification actually happened, but rather that the courts are going with it.
They are a better source than anything you’ve provided, yes.