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

[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"

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

Or ... you could read the 16th amendment ...

 

[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:


"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

Or ... you could read the 16th amendment ...

John is desperately ignoring the Eisner decision, pretending entire paragraphs don't exist. Do you really think he's going to give a fiddler's fuck about the 16th amendment?

 

[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

Or ... you could read the 16th amendment ...

As the Court did in Eisner and concluded:

"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."

 

[Skylar]

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

Or ... you could read the 16th amendment ...

As the Court did in Eisner and concluded:

"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."

Because pro-rata dividends aren't income, but capital. And thus the 16th amendment doesn't apply to them:

"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)

With the same court finding that the 16th amendment removed apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes. 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)

Yet bizarrely you insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No conservative is the constitutional conservative they claim to be. Conservatives support an authoritarian state just like liberals do, but involving different aspects of our lives.

 

[johnwk]

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

Or ... you could read the 16th amendment ...

As the Court did in Eisner and concluded:

"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."

Because pro-rata dividends aren't income, but capital. And thus the 16th amendment doesn't apply to them:

"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)

With the same court finding that the 16th amendment removed apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes. 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)

Yet bizarrely you insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And you edit out the continuation in Eisner :

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. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173.

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this 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 upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, regardless of what name Congress gives to a tax, it must be apportioned.




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)




JWK

 

[Skylar]

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

Or ... you could read the 16th amendment ...

As the Court did in Eisner and concluded:

"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."

Because pro-rata dividends aren't income, but capital. And thus the 16th amendment doesn't apply to them:

"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)

With the same court finding that the 16th amendment removed apportionment requirements for taxes on incomes. 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)

Yet bizarrely you insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And you edit out the continuation in Eisner :

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. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173

You're clearly not reading what you're responding to, John. As I didn't edit that out. I quoted it:

"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)
​

And it destroys your argument, explicitly contradicting your claims. You say that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements. The Eisner court, your own source, says that it did.

You lose again.

If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, regardless of what name Congress gives to a tax, it must be apportioned.

Says you. Your own source contradicts you. Twice. First, in the passage above, and second in the passage below:

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this 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 upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.
​

"except as it applies to income".

And 'boom'.......your awkward pseudo-legal house of cards comes tumbling down yet again. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

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)

The 16th amendment overrode pollock as it applies to income, removing any apportionment requirement. With Eisner already affirming this. Remember, Pollock came 17 years BEFORE the 16th amendment. Making it irrelevant to the 16th amendment.

Sorry, John.....but you're simply unprepared for this conversation, not having a sufficient basis of knowledge to comment intelligently. Instead you're offering us an uninformed personal opinion that no court has ever recognized as valid. And your own sources have explicitly contradicted.

if your argument had merit you wouldn't have to ignore your own sources.

 

[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)

The 16th amendment overrode Pollock .

Pollock is still binding law as confirmed in the Eisner case:


"Insofar as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 627-628, 158 U. S. 637. "

JWK

 

[johnwk]

"except as it applies to income".

And 'boom'.......your awkward pseudo-legal house of cards comes tumbling down yet again. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And in Eisner, even though the tax was claimed to be a tax upon incomes, BOOM! It was struck down as being direct and requiring an apportionment.


JWK

 

[Skylar]

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)

The 16th amendment overrode Pollock .

Pollock is still binding law as confirmed in the Eisner case:


"Insofar as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 627-628, 158 U. S. 637. "

JWK

Except as it applies to income:

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this 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 upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

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

With the Einser court finding that pro-rata dividends aren't income but capital. And the 16th amendment only applies to income:

"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)

With the Eisner court finding that the 16th amendment lifted apportionment on taxes on income:

"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)

You insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirement on taxes on income.

You're obviously, laughably wrong. Again, John.....your uninformed opinion on the matter is contradicted by your own sources.

You lose again.

 

[Skylar]

"except as it applies to income".

And 'boom'.......your awkward pseudo-legal house of cards comes tumbling down yet again. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And in Eisner, even though the tax was claimed to be a tax upon incomes, BOOM! It was struck down as being direct and requiring an apportionment.


JWK

And the Eisner court found that pro-rata stock dividends aren't income, but capital.

"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)

And the 16th amendment only applies to income. Your baseless, uninformed personal opinion is that the 16th amendment *didn't* lift apportionment requirements on taxes on income. And the Eisner court explodes your pseudo-legal gibberish with a simple, direct finding to the contrary:

"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)

Eisner and every other court to rule on the matter has found that any taxes on incomes aren't subject to apportionment requirements. Exactly as the 16th amendment states.

You lose again.

 

[johnwk]

"except as it applies to income".

And 'boom'.......your awkward pseudo-legal house of cards comes tumbling down yet again. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And in Eisner, even though the tax was claimed to be a tax upon incomes, BOOM! It was struck down as being direct and requiring an apportionment.


JWK

And the Eisner court found that pro-rata stock dividends aren't income, but capital.

.

And that proves that saying a tax is upon income and that it does not require an apportionment, does not make it necessarily so as confirmed in Eisner:


'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.


JWK

 

[Skylar]

"except as it applies to income".

And 'boom'.......your awkward pseudo-legal house of cards comes tumbling down yet again. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And in Eisner, even though the tax was claimed to be a tax upon incomes, BOOM! It was struck down as being direct and requiring an apportionment.


JWK

And the Eisner court found that pro-rata stock dividends aren't income, but capital.

.

And that proves that saying a tax is upon income and that it does not require an apportionment, does not make it so as confirmed in Eisner:


'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.


JWK

More accurately, it proves that saying that a tax is on income doesn't make it so. If its found that is an income tax, no apportionment requirement exists. If its found that it is not income, then apportionment may apply. As Eisner makes ludicrously clear here:

"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)

The reason that the tax on pro-rata stock dividends were subject to apportionment requirements....is that pro-rata dividends weren't income:

"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)

There's a reason why *every* court to rule on this topic, including Eisner.....contradict you: you simply don't know what you're talking about, John.

 

[johnwk]

There's a reason why *every* court to rule on this topic, including Eisner.....contradict you: you simply don't know what you're talking about, John.

What the Court has consistently confirmed after the adoption of the 16th Amendment is, direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

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


A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, 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.


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]

There's a reason why *every* court to rule on this topic, including Eisner.....contradict you: you simply don't know what you're talking about, John.

What the Court has consistently confirmed after the adoption of the 16th Amendment is, direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

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

Obvious nonsense. The court has *never* found that after the adoption of the 16th amendment that direct taxes on income require apportionment.

And the tax on pro-rata dividends without apportionment was found to be invalid......because pro-rata dividends aren't income. But capital.

"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)

And the 16th amendment only applies to taxes on incomes. For taxes on incomes, the Eisner court recognizes that the 16th amendment removes all apportionment requirements:

"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)

Exactly the same thing that every court who has ruled on the matter has found.

A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, 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.”

Bromley wasn't about income taxes....but excise taxes on gifts. The term 'income tax' is never mentioned once in the entire ruling. Here's a link to the Bromley ruling. Show us any mention of 'income taxes'.

Bromley v. McCaughn 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

You can't. As the case makes no mention of them. And you know this. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. No court has ever found that taxes on income must be apportioned under the 16th amendment. Not one.

Your failure on this point is perfect.

 

[Skylar]

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

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" 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."

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
​

Notice that income taxes aren't listed anywhere as a direct tax. And of course Roberts goes on to obliterate your entire basis of argument later in the decision:

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
​

As I said, you're simply too ignorant to comment on this topic intelligently. You're repeating what you were told about the Sebelius decision. But you clearly hadn't researched the actual ruling sufficiently to have an informed opinion.

Your ignorant, baseless opinion is once again debunked by your own source. And of course, contradicted by every court to rule on the topic. No court has ever found that any tax on income under the 16th amendment must be apportioned.

You lose again.

 

[johnwk]

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

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" 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."

​

Bullshit!


Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

 

[Skylar]

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

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" 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."

​

Bullshit!


Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
​

This is your own source. Your own case. And its destroys your argument, affirming that the 16th amendment overturned Pollock. And not listing income taxes as among the known direct taxes.

But you didn't know that.....because you're uselessly uninformed. You haven't researched this topic sufficiently to discuss it. You don't know what you're talking about. You're merely repeating what you've been told to think.

No court has ever found that that any tax on income under the 16th amendment must be apportioned.

You can't get around that.

 

[johnwk]

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

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" 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."

​

Bullshit!


Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up? What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which says:

'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

It is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am certain of. There is a consistency in contemporary comments of the time and tax legislation of the time establishing that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.

For example, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'



Stop making crap up.

JWK​

 

[thanatos144]

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

John Roberts lists all known types of direct taxes in the paragraph you pulled that sentence from.

" 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."

​

Bullshit!


Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'


Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Laughing......that's why you edited out John Roberts explicitly contradicting you, huh?

"That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that "direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate." Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes."

.​

Making more stuff up? What I actually did was provide the specific quote from Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which says:

'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

It is interesting to note that during the framing of our Constitution, on AUGUST 18th of the Convention as recorded in Madison’s Notes on the Convention “Mr. King asked, what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.” But having studied an abundance of historical documentation during the 1700s and when our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am certain of. There is a consistency in contemporary comments of the time and tax legislation of the time establishing that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject.

For example, during the 1700s Delaware had a direct tax system which laid a general assessment which included the "lessees of tillable land and those 'fortunate in trade . . . agreeable to the profit arising thereon , and according to their best skill and judgement . . .' [An act raising one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the Delaware State, between the first day of February and the first day of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and for other purposes therein mentioned (25 December, 1799) (DELAWARE); in laws of the state of Delaware, 1797, page 682; American Antiquarian Society (1956---,No 32030)

Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'



Stop making crap up.

JWK​

Why is it you always seem to have problems with what the constitution says???? Is it the simple English that confuses you or the words bigger then two syllables?