The arguments used by tax protesters, like Aaron Russo, the guy behind "From Freedom to Fascism", are illogical and totally without basis. For a thorough listing of the arguments commonly employed by folks like Mr. Russo and their refutations see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments
In particular, the film makes the argument that the 16th Amendment (which authorized the federal income tax) was never properly ratified. Multiple courts have considered the argument and all have rightly rejected it. See, for instance [1].
In short, the income tax is perfectly legal and arguments to the contrary are all baseless, at best. I am not at all sympathetic to people like Messrs. Russo and Schiff, whether or not they found two Congressmen who agreed with them on some points. Not knowing what those members said, or even who they are, I would just point out that Michael Moore likewise interviews two Representatives for Fahrenheit 9/11. Their views, like those of anyone else, are only valuable so far as they comport with reality.
Speaking of the movie's Irwin Schiff, who is now serving his third prison sentence, he filed motions in court claiming insanity, a fact omitted by the movie. Through his lawyer, he argued that his
"consistent and repeated insistence on the lawfulness of his actions and the unlawfulness of the actions of the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and the various courts in his cases appears to epitomize a rigid belief system as part of a mixed type delusional disorder involving both grandiosity and persecution."
His motion then quotes a psychiatrist who treated him:
"In my professional opinion I felt that the patient did not pay taxes because he was convinced that the law does not require him to do so. I think this is a delusional disorder. He has this thing for a long time but no medication seem to make him believe otherwise. The patient is presently being treated for bipolar depression."
That motion, which is very entertaining to read, is available online [2]. The colloquy between Judge Dorsey and Mr. Schiff on pages 17-21 of the motion is both funny and sad. For more information on Mr. Schiff, see: http://irwinschiffbs.blogspot.com/
In addition to leaving out information on the protagonist's mental condition, the film misrepresents numerous other facts and presents a number of quotes out of context, at one point quoting a judge who ruled against the position that Russo implies he supported. For a sampling see the New York Times article " Facts Refute Filmmaker's Assertions on Income Tax in 'America' " [3].
In general, I think that Jonah Goldberg, contributor to and Editor-at-Large of National Review Online, put it well when he wrote:
I've gotten a lot of traction out of my seemingly banal observation that it is highly improbable that the United States will ever become a Nazi-like or otherwise totalitarian nation. For some reason, this is the sort of obvious statement which strikes lots of folks as shocking or controversial, even though it's only slightly less of a "Well, duh" assertion than saying, "The oceans will not turn into diet Mr. Pibb in our lifetimes."
Lastly, the Supreme Court has in no way ruled the 16th Amendment unconstitutional, which is why you don't quote the passage in question or cite the decision in which it appears. But since almost every United States Court of Appeals has made a blanket statement repudiating tax protester arguments, it's easy for me to do so. Check out United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (7th Cir. 1987):
"For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered 'objectively reasonable' in this circuit:
"(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
"(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
"(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
"(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
"(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
"(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
"(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income."
Of course, you'll probably give this answer a thumbs down, most likely without even considering its arguments. You will probably do so without reading this beyond the distance needed to determine that I, like 99% of the population, don't accept your arguments. Have fun quaffing the Kool Aid with your tin foil hat!