Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment on taxation is not what our Founders intended!

[johnwk]

.

According to an article titled Preserving republican government in America: Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments, which appeared in “Conservative Intelligence Briefing”, August 29th, 2013, written by J. Cal Davenport:


Levin proposes an amendment to limit federal taxing. It would limit the income tax at a rate no higher than 15%. It would eliminate the estate tax and prevent Congress from adding a value-added tax or a national sales tax on top of the income tax. Most interestingly, in order to remind Americans how much they hate federal taxes and to incentivize them to vote for someone who won’t raise taxes to an out-of-control rate, Levin’s amendment would move Tax Day to the day before Election Day.


What is most distressing is, Mark Levin appears to not only be ok with keeping alive the very system of taxation which is the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon America’s businesses, industries and productive members of society, but Mr. Levin has totally ignored or perhaps overlooked that part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787 which was intended to tie both direct taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment___ a rule which boils down to “one man one vote”, and, ”one vote one dollar” whenever a direct tax is laid upon the people of the United States.

This tax, if levied directly upon the people by Congress turns out to be an equal per capita tax! For example, if a “progressive” representative from a socialist state like California, New York, New Jersey, etc., votes to federally fund a welfare program in their district, his immediate constituents who benefit from that “program” will be obligated to pay the same amount of tax as a constituent of another state who does not benefit from the program. The exception is when a direct tax is levied and a bill is sent to each state’s Governor and Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the tax and a provision is made in the levy to allow each state to raise its share in its own chosen way.


Our Founding Fathers fair share formula for this tax is as follows:


States’ pop.
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.


As you can see the rule of apportioning direct taxes, which Mark seems to have overlooked but is still very much part of our Constitution, if enforced would discourage members of Congress to levy direct taxes except upon emergency because their immediate constituents would be subject to an equal share of the burden.


Although Mark Levin makes an attempt to soften the impact of direct taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes, and make it a bit more palatable for those who have to pay it __ a tax embraced by socialists and progressives __ Mr. Levin makes no attempt to resurrect the brilliance of our Founders ingenious tax plan which was intended to protect the American people from the evil nature of direct taxation.


In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797:


"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct “taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" and they went on to command that ”No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


And so, Mr. Levin’s proposed tax amendment totally ignores the wisdom and legislative intent of our Constitution, and would keep alive the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon America’s businesses, industries and productive members of society. Why does he ignore the vital protection which the rule of apportionment was intended to provide?

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides,that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[dcraelin]

There were differing opinions as to what a Direct tax was. Despite your understanding, an income tax was levied during the Civil War prior to income tax amendment and regarded as constitutional. Regardless the Income tax amendment was passed by 3/4ths of the states or better and represents the will of the people.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Why not just make it a law? Why an amendment? Why does he want it to be an amendment? Oh, because he knows that it would flop and fail, and he wants it to be more difficult to dump once its clear how stupid an idea it is.

 

[johnwk]

There were differing opinions as to what a Direct tax was. Despite your understanding, an income tax was levied during the Civil War prior to income tax amendment and regarded as constitutional. Regardless the Income tax amendment was passed by 3/4ths of the states or better and represents the will of the people.

And what does you post have to do with Mark Levin's desire to keep alive taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes? He could have proposed ending this despotic tax by offering to add the following 32 words to our Constitution:


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


These words would return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing an equal share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.

Why is Mark Levin in favor of keeping the despotic tax calculated from incomes alive?


JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Interesting reading but beyond my knowledge so I have no opinion.

 

[dcraelin]

There were differing opinions as to what a Direct tax was. Despite your understanding, an income tax was levied during the Civil War prior to income tax amendment and regarded as constitutional. Regardless the Income tax amendment was passed by 3/4ths of the states or better and represents the will of the people.

And what does you post have to do with Mark Levin's desire to keep alive taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes? He could have proposed ending this despotic tax by offering to add the following 32 words to our Constitution:


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


These words would return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing an equal share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.

Why is Mark Levin in favor of keeping the despotic tax calculated from incomes alive?
JWK

my post talked about the founders intention.....that intention is unclear was what I was saying.

one change I think both left and right could agree to would be the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds, these bonds fund some of the most idiotic projects at the local level and if the cost to government was higher it would result in fewer of them.

 

[g5000]

A 15 percent income tax, with no other federal taxes, will never fly.

Never.

The American people, both Left and Right, like a big spending government. That's why we have a $16 trillion debt.

Levin's idea is stillborn.

 

[dcraelin]

I think you answered your own question.

Federal spending has been higher (around 22% of gdp I think) for many years no matter what party is in power so that is a more realistic starting point 22%.

 

[johnwk]

There were differing opinions as to what a Direct tax was. Despite your understanding, an income tax was levied during the Civil War prior to income tax amendment and regarded as constitutional. Regardless the Income tax amendment was passed by 3/4ths of the states or better and represents the will of the people.

And what does you post have to do with Mark Levin's desire to keep alive taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes? He could have proposed ending this despotic tax by offering to add the following 32 words to our Constitution:


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money


These words would return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing an equal share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.

Why is Mark Levin in favor of keeping the despotic tax calculated from incomes alive?
JWK

my post talked about the founders intention.....that intention is unclear was what I was saying.

one change I think both left and right could agree to would be the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds, these bonds fund some of the most idiotic projects at the local level and if the cost to government was higher it would result in fewer of them.

And just what was the legislative intentions for the rule of apportionment with respect to taxation as expressed by our founding fathers? What is your documentation?

Were their intentions to allow what Mark Levin offers as tax reform?


JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

[dcraelin]

"

And just what was the legislative intentions for the rule of apportionment with respect to taxation as expressed by our founding fathers? What is your documentation?"

"Were their intentions to allow what Mark Levin offers as tax reform?"

The new government was thought to be based largely on the old which was funded by direct requisitions on the states, that likely was the understanding of some framers. That method was unsatisfactory to a lot so new gov was largely funded by tariffs.

talking about intentions can be a problem when different framers had different intentions and when those in turn could be different than the constitutions enablers, i.e. We The People. I remember reading somewhere that soon after constitution passed a tax on carriages(similar to an income tax) was ruled constitutional. The framers did not limit any tax rates that I am aware of so unlikely they would have liked Levin's idea

 

[johnwk]

"

And just what was the legislative intentions for the rule of apportionment with respect to taxation as expressed by our founding fathers? What is your documentation?"

"Were their intentions to allow what Mark Levin offers as tax reform?"

The new government was thought to be based largely on the old which was funded by direct requisitions on the states, that likely was the understanding of some framers. That method was unsatisfactory to a lot so new gov was largely funded by tariffs.

talking about intentions can be a problem when different framers had different intentions and when those in turn could be different than the constitutions enablers, i.e. We The People. I remember reading somewhere that soon after constitution passed a tax on carriages(similar to an income tax) was ruled constitutional. The framers did not limit any tax rates that I am aware of so unlikely they would have liked Levin's idea

Talking about intentions can be a problem? Perhaps, but not when it comes to the rule of apportionment. The fact is, the founders intentions regarding the rule of apportionment as applied to representation and direct taxation are very easily establish by the historic record!

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


And the above intentions are expressed in a number of the state ratification documents, e.g., see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

And so, Mark Levin’s tax reform amendment totally ignores the legislative intent of our founding fathers, and particularly ignores the rule of apportionment being applied whenever Congress decides to enter the states and tax the people directly! Seems to me Mr. Levin may support one man one vote, but is quite comfortable with ignoring one vote one dollar. I know socialists and progressives always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution. But when it comes time to abide by the one vote on dollar thing, they run and hide and expect those who they can outvote to carry the financial burdens of our federal government.

It would be nice to hear Mark Levin do a show which documents how the Great Compromise of the Convention came about, and the founders reasoning behind their command that Representatives and Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States. I did a thorough research on this back in the 1980s and I can assure you our founder’s reasoning on this issue is sheer brilliance. I suspect if the general population understood our founders reasoning on this issue, it would spark real tax reform and an overwhelming outcry to return to our Founders original tax plan,


JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[Pete7469]

Levin's Amendments are just ideas, his first chapter lays that out.

Furthermore, the government does need funding to function. His idea allows for it, and limits the government far more than it is now.

 

[g5000]

Levin's Amendments are just ideas, his first chapter lays that out.

Furthermore, the government does need funding to function. His idea allows for it, and limits the government far more than it is now.

Everyone is for limiting government, until you ask them what part of government they want to go away. Then the answer is always the same, "That stuff you give to other people. Don't take away mine."

 

[dcraelin]

Talking about intentions can be a problem? Perhaps, but not when it comes to the rule of apportionment. The fact is, the founders intentions regarding the rule of apportionment as applied to representation and direct taxation are very easily establish by the historic record!

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”

nothing in your links that I saw refutes what I said, in fact, the one I quote above seems to support it, showing various forms of requisitions on the states. Apportionment isnt the question. The question is whether income taxes are direct taxes to be apportioned, and the Carriage tax and the Civil war taxes, which were allowed, seem to show the courts closer to the founders thought income taxes were legal, and not direct taxes.

 

[johnwk]

Levin's Amendments are just ideas, his first chapter lays that out.

Furthermore, the government does need funding to function. His idea allows for it, and limits the government far more than it is now.

I would expect Mark Levin, who always touts adhering to our Founder’s intentions, to have “ideas” on tax reform more in line with our Founder’s thinking, and less in line with progressive and socialist thinking, and especially in compliance with the rule of apportionment which is still an important part of our Constitution, and is an essential protection against despotic taxation!

Additionally, our founder’s original tax plan provides sufficient taxing powers to raise existing levels of revenue, but it also has a mechanism that holds every member of Congress immediately accountable if Congress cannot fund its constitutionally authorized functions from imposts, duties, and excise taxes which then requires the apportioned tax to be laid to make up the shortfall, and each State’s Congressional Delegation is to return home with a bill in hand for their Governor and State Legislature to deal with and pay. And note, the fair share formula for this apportioned tax is as follows:


States’ pop.
---------------- X SHORTFALL = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.


And so, I don’t know why you have reminded us that”the government does need funding to function”, which is a self-evident truth.


JWK

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

 

[johnwk]

Levin's Amendments are just ideas, his first chapter lays that out.

Furthermore, the government does need funding to function. His idea allows for it, and limits the government far more than it is now.

Everyone is for limiting government, until you ask them what part of government they want to go away. Then the answer is always the same, "That stuff you give to other people. Don't take away mine."

Exactly! And that is why our founders adopted a written Constitution with defined and limited powers, and limitations upon taxation such as requiring direct taxes to be apportioned which turns out to be an equal tax if levied upon the people.

Unfortunately, Mark Levin's tax reform amendment ignores the rule of apportionment and proposes to keep alive a despotic form of taxation.

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[dcraelin]

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Im guessing this came from one of the most ridiculed Supreme court cases of all time. It essentially led to the constitutional amendment that talks about income taxes. People were upset that the Court found some gimmicky "reasoning" to outlaw what had already been legal previously (in the Civil War). This case led to amendment proposals which passed with over 3/4ths of the states approving.

 

[johnwk]

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Im guessing this came from one of the most ridiculed Supreme court cases of all time. It essentially led to the constitutional amendment that talks about income taxes. People were upset that the Court found some gimmicky "reasoning" to outlaw what had already been legal previously (in the Civil War). This case led to amendment proposals which passed with over 3/4ths of the states approving.

You are very much misguided that the 16th Amendment "talks about income taxes". There is no mention of a generically named "income tax" which is a specific kind of tax known to our founding fathers. The 16th Amendment reads as follows:

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.


Additionally, there is no mention in the amendment that The Congress shall have power to lay and collect “direct taxes” on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The simple truth is, Congress was not granted power to lay and collect a tax upon incomes which turns out to be a direct tax, unless it is apportioned among the States. And this was confirmed shortly after the amendment was adopted in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) which struck down a tax upon incomes as being direct, and not being apportioned. The Court stated:

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

A few years later, in another case dealing with taxes levied upon incomes, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court once againg emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”


And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:


A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

The bottom line is, Congress does not have a grant of power to lay and collect a tax upon incomes if it takes the form of a direct tax unless it is apportioned among the States.
.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[dcraelin]

"taxes on incomes"
-your seriouly saying that doesnt mean an income tax?...get real

"which turns out to be a direct tax"---how does it turn out to be a direct tax?
cause you say so?...regardless we now have an amendment that says "without regard to any census or enumeration."

Roberts is an idiot, and your quote from him shows it "It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person,"--this idea of what a capitation is, is debateable as I said before, they are not necessarily paid by "every person"

 

[johnwk]

"taxes on incomes"
-your seriouly saying that doesnt mean an income tax?...get real

"which turns out to be a direct tax"---how does it turn out to be a direct tax?
cause you say so?...regardless we now have an amendment that says "without regard to any census or enumeration."

Roberts is an idiot, and your quote from him shows it "It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person,"--this idea of what a capitation is, is debateable as I said before, they are not necessarily paid by "every person"

What I am saying is, the 16th Amendment does not mention an “income tax”. And, I am factually correct! I am also correct that the 16th Amendment did not repeal the requirement that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned, and, I provided three Supreme Court cases to confirm this fact.

I know our Washington Establishment’s propaganda machine has been brain washing the American people about the Sixteenth Amendment for generations. But, the fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment. But this power was within Congress’ taxing powers prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and this fact is established in Flint vs. Stone Tracy, decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

In the Flint case a tax calculated from incomes [the corporate excise tax of 1909] was held to be constitutional because it was indirect and not requiring an apportionment. What made the tax calculated from incomes indirect was that it was imposed upon a government granted privilege of being a corporation, and the tax was levied against the privilege making it indirect while the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from the income earned under the privilege granted by government. The court stated:

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled in Flint - that Congress did have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without apportionment. In fact, the 16th Amendment granted no new power to Congress as stated by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):

"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

As to taxes which are direct, I provided you with sufficient quotations from the Supreme Court confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned.

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)