Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

[Skylar]

OK, where is the stuff you cited in the Constitution? The 16th says income taxed do not need to be apportioned, but you said taxes do need to be apportioned unless a bunch of stuff you seem to have made up about imposts and duties and things. Rather than conclude you made it up, I'm asking where you got it

Instead of editorializing on what the 16th Amendment declares, quote what it actually says. And my question to you was, "See what in the 16th amendment?" You wrote in response to my above post "I don't see that in the sixteenth, can you show that?" You asked that question in response to my post about the apportioned direct tax.

JWK

I've repeatedly shown you the 16th amendment. It says income taxes do not need to be apportioned. You keep saying they do,

That is a lie. What I keep pointing out and documenting is that a direct tax, even if it is claimed to be a tax upon incomes, is still required to be apportioned. Stop being obtuse and lying.


JWK

Not according to the sixteenth amendment

Your unsubstantiated opinion about the 16th Amendment and that "direct taxes" are not required to be apportioned, is noted.

Contrary to your opinion, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Bromely isn't about income taxes. But excise taxes.

The power to give cannot be said to be a more important incident of property than the power to use, the exercise of which was taxed inBillings v. United States, and, even though differences in degree may be carried to a point where they produce distinctions in kind, the present levy falls so far short of taxing generally the uses of property that it cannot be likened to the taxes on property itself which have been recognized as direct. It falls, rather, into that category of imposts or excises which, since they apply only to a limited exercise of property rights, have been deemed to be indirect, and so valid although not apportioned.

BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929),

The term 'income tax' doesn't appear once in the entire ruling. There's no discussion of income taxes. Its a question of if the tax is a direct tax or an excise tax. Which you know but really hope we don't. Again, your entire argument is based on the ignorance of your audence.

Not one case you've ever cited as found that direct taxes on incomes must be apportioned. With your own cases explicitly contradicting you:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

This is your own source. Your own case. And it destroys your entire argument. Stating, with no ambiguity, that the 16th amendment removed any apportionment requirements on taxes laid on incomes.

You're simply don't know enough about this topic to have an informed opinion, John. With no court since the passage of the 16th amendment finding that a direct tax on incomes must be apportioned.

Not one. Your failure is perfect.

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned

16th Amendment: 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

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

 

[kaz]

The 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned

16th Amendment: 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

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

Read the sixteenth amendment which specifically says that income taxes don't need to be apportioned.

I'd like to see how far you're going to get when you can't read the sixteenth amendment and you keep arguing about it with someone who thinks the sixteenth amendment is the second worst amendment to the Constitution ...

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned

16th Amendment: 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

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

Read the sixteenth amendment which specifically says that income taxes don't need to be apportioned.

I'd like to see how far you're going to get when you can't read the sixteenth amendment and you keep arguing about it with someone who thinks the sixteenth amendment is the second worst amendment to the Constitution ...

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

 

[kaz]

The 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned

16th Amendment: 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

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

Read the sixteenth amendment which specifically says that income taxes don't need to be apportioned.

I'd like to see how far you're going to get when you can't read the sixteenth amendment and you keep arguing about it with someone who thinks the sixteenth amendment is the second worst amendment to the Constitution ...

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

Stop dancing around the point and address specifically the sixteenth amendment which says income taxes do not need to be apportioned

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned

16th Amendment: 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

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise, income tax or "the shared responsibility payment". If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

Read the sixteenth amendment which specifically says that income taxes don't need to be apportioned.

I'd like to see how far you're going to get when you can't read the sixteenth amendment and you keep arguing about it with someone who thinks the sixteenth amendment is the second worst amendment to the Constitution ...

What I have stated in crystal clear language is, "The very purpose of the rule of apportionment was to insure representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote on dollar" AS APPLIED TO ANY DIRECT TAX.

Keep in mind that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court 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:

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


It does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


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)

Stop dancing around the point and address specifically the sixteenth amendment which says income taxes do not need to be apportioned

The 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income taxes". But even if it did, it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as commanded by our Constitution and repeatedly confirmed by our Court!


In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an "excise" tax. but 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 dealing with what is called "The shared responsibility payment":

"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."

The fact is it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.

The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."




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)

 

[kaz]

The 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income taxes"

16th amemdment: 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.

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income taxes"

16th amemdment: 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.

Well, thank you for confirming the 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income tax".


JWK

 

[sonic]

 

[thanatos144]

The 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned

16th Amendment: 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

Why do you keep showing him the truth? He just ignores it because Savage hasn't told him how to think.

 

[kaz]

The 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income taxes"

16th amemdment: 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.

Well, thank you for confirming the 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income tax".


JWK

No it doesn't say "income tax," it says "taxes on income." That is a critical difference, thanks for pointing it out. It changes the entire discussion, doesn't it, brainiac. You are actually a rocket scientist, aren't you?

 

[kaz]

The 16th Amendment did not change the requirement that "direct taxes" are required to be apportioned

16th Amendment: 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

Why do you keep showing him the truth? He just ignores it because Savage hasn't told him how to think.

He cracks me up

 

[johnwk]

The 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income taxes"

16th amemdment: 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.

Well, thank you for confirming the 16th Amendment does not contain the phrase "income tax".


JWK

No it doesn't say "income tax," it says "taxes on income." That is a critical difference, thanks for pointing it out. It changes the entire discussion, doesn't it, brainiac. You are actually a rocket scientist, aren't you?

Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read.

Aside from that, what has the Court stated in Eisner regarding the tax on income?



'That Congress has power to tax shareholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question, and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But that this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

The fact is it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise, income tax or the "shared responsibility payment": If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as commanded by our Constitution and confirmed by our Court.

And with regard to the question of what did the 16th Amendment accomplish, the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), emphasizes the following:

“… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth 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 and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”

The power to tax income, which Congress had prior to the 16th Amendment which does not require apportionment because the tax being levied on income takes the form of indirect taxation, [e.g., under its excise taxing power as was upheld in Flint vs. Stone Tracy] may not be extended by the 16th Amendment to apply to a tax on income if it takes the form of direct taxation which is subject to the rule of apportionment.

Keep in mind the Flint case was decided after the 16th Amendment was sent to the States for ratification, but before the 16th Amendment was ratified. The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court decided in the Flint case ___ that Congress could tax incomes without apportionment so long as the tax on incomes was an indirect tax not requiring an apportionment.

The modification [new wording in the Constitution] simply confirms that Congress can tax incomes without apportionment so long as the tax is indirect.


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)

 

[kaz]

Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read

No, you're not, you keep arguing the sixteenth doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned and you think "taxes on incomes" doesn't refer to "income taxes"

 

[johnwk]

Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read

No, you're not, you keep arguing the sixteenth doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned and you think "taxes on incomes" doesn't refer to "income taxes"

Actually, I have never claimed the 16th Amendment doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned. Why do you find in necessary to misrepresent what I have posted?


Aside from that, just what has the Court stated in Eisner regarding a tax on incomes? I says in crystal clear language:



'That Congress has power to tax shareholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question, and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But that this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

The fact is it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise, income tax or the "shared responsibility payment": If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as commanded by our Constitution and confirmed by our Court.

And with regard to the question of what did the 16th Amendment accomplish, the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), emphasizes the following:

“… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth 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 and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”

The power to tax income, which Congress had prior to the 16th Amendment which does not require apportionment because the tax being levied on income takes the form of indirect taxation, [e.g., under its excise taxing power as was upheld in Flint vs. Stone Tracy] may not be extended by the 16th Amendment to apply to a tax on income if it takes the form of direct taxation which is subject to the rule of apportionment.

Keep in mind the Flint case was decided after the 16th Amendment was sent to the States for ratification, but before the 16th Amendment was ratified. The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court decided in the Flint case ___ that Congress could tax incomes without apportionment so long as the tax on incomes was an indirect tax not requiring an apportionment.

The modification [new wording in the Constitution] simply confirms that Congress can tax incomes without apportionment so long as the tax is indirect.


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)

 

[Skylar]

Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read

No, you're not, you keep arguing the sixteenth doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned and you think "taxes on incomes" doesn't refer to "income taxes"

Actually, I have never claimed the 16th Amendment doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned. Why do you find in necessary to misrepresent what I have posted?


Aside from that, just what has the Court stated in Eisner regarding a tax on incomes? I says in crystal clear language:



'That Congress has power to tax shareholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question, and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But that this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

You're profoundly confused. The Eisner Court found that pro-rate dividends specifically weren't income...because nothing was derived. They never found that pro-rata dividends were income...but couldn't be taxed because they were direct taxes.

This is your fundamental blunder; you keep insisting that the 16th amendment didn't lift apportionment requirements on taxes on income. And you're laughably, obviously wrong. As Einser makes ludicrously clear:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)
​

Again, John.....you simply don't know what you're talking about. You're insufficiently prepared for this conversation to discuss it intelligently.

 

[Skylar]

Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read

No, you're not, you keep arguing the sixteenth doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned and you think "taxes on incomes" doesn't refer to "income taxes"

Its one of the reasons no one, nor a single court have ever taken John's pseudo-legal gibberish seriously.

And he's been posting this nonsense for 10 years.

 

[johnwk]

Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read

No, you're not, you keep arguing the sixteenth doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned and you think "taxes on incomes" doesn't refer to "income taxes"

Actually, I have never claimed the 16th Amendment doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned. Why do you find in necessary to misrepresent what I have posted?


Aside from that, just what has the Court stated in Eisner regarding a tax on incomes? I says in crystal clear language:



'That Congress has power to tax shareholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question, and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But that this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

You're profoundly confused. The Eisner Court found ....

Here is what the Court concluded in Eisner, in its own words, not yours:


"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."


And what was "contravened"?

article 1, 2, cl. 3, declares:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States

And article 1, 9, cl. 4 declares:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


The fact is, as stated by the Court, the Revenue Act of 1916 being applied to Eisner was found to contravene the direct tax requirements of apportionment "and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

JWK

 

[Kondor3]

Doesn't matter whether Cruz is a Constitutional Conservative or a Marxist in Sheep's Clothing...

If he sends the Illegal Beaners home...

And keeps the Muzzie Nasties out...

And brings jobs back on-shore...

It's all good...

 

[Skylar]

Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read

No, you're not, you keep arguing the sixteenth doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned and you think "taxes on incomes" doesn't refer to "income taxes"

Actually, I have never claimed the 16th Amendment doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned. Why do you find in necessary to misrepresent what I have posted?


Aside from that, just what has the Court stated in Eisner regarding a tax on incomes? I says in crystal clear language:



'That Congress has power to tax shareholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question, and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But that this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

You're profoundly confused. The Eisner Court found ....

Here is what the Court concluded in Eisner, in its own words, not yours:

Laughing....do you honestly think we're not allowed to see the passage from Eisner that obliterates your claims just because you remove it from any reply and refuse to acknowledge it exists?

Good luck with that.

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."


And what was "contravened"?

As has been explained to you slowly, and at least a dozen times......because pro-rata stock dividends aren't income, but capital. And thus the 16th amendment doesn't apply. As your own case makes ridiculously clear with this direct and simple language:

"Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. "

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You've highlighted this very passage and quoted it. So you can't pretend you've never seen it. It merely contradicts you. So you stopped quoting it and now refuse to acknowledge the passage even exists. Exactly as you have this passage from the same ruling that utterly obliterates your nonsense that the 16th amendment lifted no apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes:

"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."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income."

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

Again, John.....you simply don't know what you're talking about. You're not prepared for this conversation, you haven't done suffecient research and your opinion is gloriously uninformed. You've been reduced to ignoring your own source and pretending the passages that destroy your argument don't exist.

But no one, no court, no poster, nobody....is willing to pretend with you. Which is why you failed. As we can still see the passages of Eisner that destroy your argument....even when you pretend they don't exist.

You're fucked, John. You lost the moment you ignored your own source.