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

[johnwk]

You have to ignore both my quote of Eisner and your own quote of Eisner. Your argument is refuted by either. You simply haven't done sufficient research on this topic to discuss it intelligently.

Try again. This time reading what you're posting.

"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."

SO SAYS THE COURT!

JWK

 

[kaz]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

 

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

Who is Holmes? And what am I wrong about what you posted in red? I have stated numerous things about what you posted in red from our Constitution.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS

And I am a supporter of Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would, unlike Cruz's proposal, actually close down the IRS

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 

[kaz]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

Who is Holmes? And what am I wrong about what you posted in red? I have stated numerous things about what you posted in red from our Constitution.

JWK

You said "our Constitution requires any direct tax to be APPORTIONED among the States."

It did when written, but the the sixteenth said income taxes could be levied WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States."

How do you not get that? What you said was wrong, the 16th said that Cruz is right. You understand that amendments are part of the Constitution, right?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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.

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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." The constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

seems far fetched that Cruz would close down the IRS

a lot of hot air

 

[kaz]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS

And I am a supporter of Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would, unlike Cruz's proposal, actually close down the IRS

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I already told you I oppose the income tax, which of course means I would also repeal the 16th. Your plan is way better than what we have, but it would be challenging for States like Mississippi to raise per capita revenue at the rate of a California or New York. I favor the Fair Tax because it taxes the source the economy, economic transactions, and it taxes them all flatly once. So it eliminates all favoritism, it eliminates all overhead (tax lawyers, ...), it eliminates all disincentives to inefficiencies (businesses make decisions to avoid taxes rather than operate efficiently), it eliminates cash paid employees who evade taxes, it stops punishing employers who stay on shore, it helps US corporations by not charging them more taxes than foreign corporations and it eliminates politicians ability to sell tax favoritism for campaign contributions.

But you didn't just say there are better plans than Cruz's, which I agreed with, you said he was Constitutionally wrong because the Constitution requires taxes be apportioned to the States. Factually, you're wrong. I don't get how you didn't get that I kept showing you on that part about what Cruz said you were wrong because I put it in red showing your quote and the sixteenth and that you just on that were flat out wrong

 

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

Who is Holmes? And what am I wrong about what you posted in red? I have stated numerous things about what you posted in red from our Constitution.

JWK

You said "our Constitution requires any direct tax to be APPORTIONED among the States."

It did when written, but the the sixteenth said income taxes could be levied WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States."

Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as confirmed by the Supreme Court.


There is nothing in the 16th Amendment stating that "direct taxes on income are not subject to apportionment". The 16th Amendment did not remove the constitutional requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"



Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


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




Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:


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.



--- cut ---


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, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.



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.



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

 

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS

And I am a supporter of Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would, unlike Cruz's proposal, actually close down the IRS

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I already told you I oppose the income tax, which of course means I would also repeal the 16th. Your plan is way better than what we have, but it would be challenging for States like Mississippi to raise per capita revenue at the rate of a California or New York.

The apportioned direct tax is only to be imposed if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption. The fear of the apportioned direct tax having to be imposed if Congress spends more than what is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes would actually encourage each state's congressional delegation while in Washington to avoid deficit spending as doing so would then require each state's congressional delegation to return home with a bill in hand for the their Governor and State Legislature to pay their fair share from their state treasury, or raise additional taxes in the state and then transfer that money into the federal treasury.


JWK

 

[kaz]

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

Who is Holmes? And what am I wrong about what you posted in red? I have stated numerous things about what you posted in red from our Constitution.

JWK

You said "our Constitution requires any direct tax to be APPORTIONED among the States."

It did when written, but the the sixteenth said income taxes could be levied WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States."

Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as confirmed by the Supreme Court.


There is nothing in the 16th Amendment stating that "direct taxes on income are not subject to apportionment". The 16th Amendment did not remove the constitutional requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"



Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


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




Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:


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.



--- cut ---


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, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.



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.



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

John Roberts is full of shit. He thinks that government setting up exchanges and dictating what insurance we can buy is a "tax" and if what you say is true, he thinks the income tax is not a direct tax? What a load.

The point of the sixteenth is that government can tax income even though it is a direct tax and it is not apportioned. You need to stick to there are better solutions than the income tax, there are, and cut the crap that what Cruz said was wrong, he wasn't

 

[kaz]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS

And I am a supporter of Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would, unlike Cruz's proposal, actually close down the IRS

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I already told you I oppose the income tax, which of course means I would also repeal the 16th. Your plan is way better than what we have, but it would be challenging for States like Mississippi to raise per capita revenue at the rate of a California or New York.

The apportioned direct tax is only to be imposed if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption. The fear of the apportioned direct tax having to be imposed if Congress spends more than what is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes would actually encourage each state's congressional delegation while in Washington to avoid deficit spending as doing so would then require each state's congressional delegation to return home with a bill in hand for the their Governor and State Legislature to pay their fair share from their state treasury, or raise additional taxes in the state and then transfer that money into the federal treasury.


JWK

I don't see that in the sixteenth, can you show that?

 

[Skylar]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

The part that was highlighted perhaps. You insist that any direct tax has to0 be apportioned. The 16th amendment makes it clear that any tax on incomes doesn't need to be apportioned.

You're quite simple wrong.

 

[Skylar]

You have to ignore both my quote of Eisner and your own quote of Eisner. Your argument is refuted by either. You simply haven't done sufficient research on this topic to discuss it intelligently.

Try again. This time reading what you're posting.

"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."

SO SAYS THE COURT!

JWK

And from your own quote is the reason why they found that the Revenue Act of 1916 didn't apply to pro-rata stock dividends;

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)
​

No where in the entire ruling does the Eisner court say all direct taxes must be apportioned. On the contrary, the Einser court explicit recognizes that the 16th amendment removed 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)
​

Your own quotes and your own ruling destroy your entire pseudo-legal argument that direct taxes on income must be apportioned.

Again, John......you simply aren't prepared for this conversation. Nor have you researched the topic sufficiently to comment intelligently. As you literally have to ignore your own sources.

And as a full century of contradiction of your assumptions demonstrates, no court is obligated to ignore what you do.

 

[Skylar]

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

Who is Holmes? And what am I wrong about what you posted in red? I have stated numerous things about what you posted in red from our Constitution.

JWK

You said "our Constitution requires any direct tax to be APPORTIONED among the States."

It did when written, but the the sixteenth said income taxes could be levied WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States."

Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Not 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)
​

This is a passage from Eisner that you still refuse to acknowledge even exists. Ignoring it won't magical make it go away.

There is nothing in the 16th Amendment stating that "direct taxes on income are not subject to apportionment". The 16th Amendment did not remove the constitutional requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

The 16th amendment explicitly exempts all taxes on income from any apportionment requirement:

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.

You insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements on income tax. The 16th amendment says the otherwise.

The 16th amendment wins.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


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

Strawman. As Eisner makes clear, the power to tax incomes isn't new. The power to tax incomes with no apportionment requirement is what the 16th amendment does.

Oh, and Stanton LOST. The court upheld the lower court's ruling that the mining company he held shares in had to pay income tax.

Here's the full quote, with everything bolded being what you left out.

"by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."​

Again, your own source affirms that the 16th amendment prevented income taxes from being placed in the category of direct taxation. You know this kills your argument. Which is why your quote cut out *just* before this was mentioned by the court.

As I said, your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. Anyone who has an even passing acquaintance with the topic sees that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

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.

Did you even read what you quoted?

"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)

​

" except as applied to income". And your argument fails again. You need to actually read what you're citing. Eisner explicitly recognizes that the 16th amendment exempts income taxes from the apportionment clause. A fact that is reiterated by the Eisner court:

"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 yet you ludicrously insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements. Every court to have ruled on the 16th amendment contradicts you.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're not informed enough to discuss this topic intelligently.

 

[martybegan]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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.

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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." The constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

seems far fetched that Cruz would close down the IRS

a lot of hot air

he would have to create another agency to collect revenue, or expand a branch of the Treasury to do it.

To me its like when they "close" a failing public school. The building remains the same, the students remain the same, but all the administrators and teachers are removed, and new ones or the ones they want to keep are brought it.

 

[Skylar]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

Would you PLEASE shut up with this bullshit!

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

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.

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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." The constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


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)

seems far fetched that Cruz would close down the IRS

a lot of hot air

he would have to create another agency to collect revenue, or expand a branch of the Treasury to do it.

To me its like when they "close" a failing public school. The building remains the same, the students remain the same, but all the administrators and teachers are removed, and new ones or the ones they want to keep are brought it.

Nah, Cruz just doesn't want an effective IRS. Which is why the GOP has voted to defund it despite every dollar spent on funding the IRS resulting in 6 additional dollars in revenue.

Cruz is a neo-confederate who doesn't want an effective federal government. He doesn't want the federal government to be able to fund itself or to be able to borrow. Instead, he wants to 'starve the beast' and shift power to the States.

 

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS

And I am a supporter of Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would, unlike Cruz's proposal, actually close down the IRS

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I already told you I oppose the income tax, which of course means I would also repeal the 16th. Your plan is way better than what we have, but it would be challenging for States like Mississippi to raise per capita revenue at the rate of a California or New York.

The apportioned direct tax is only to be imposed if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption. The fear of the apportioned direct tax having to be imposed if Congress spends more than what is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes would actually encourage each state's congressional delegation while in Washington to avoid deficit spending as doing so would then require each state's congressional delegation to return home with a bill in hand for the their Governor and State Legislature to pay their fair share from their state treasury, or raise additional taxes in the state and then transfer that money into the federal treasury.


JWK

I don't see that in the sixteenth, can you show that?

See what in the 16th amendment?

JWK

 

[johnwk]

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

Who is Holmes? And what am I wrong about what you posted in red? I have stated numerous things about what you posted in red from our Constitution.

JWK

You said "our Constitution requires any direct tax to be APPORTIONED among the States."

It did when written, but the the sixteenth said income taxes could be levied WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States."

Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Not 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)
​

This is a passage from Eisner that you still refuse to acknowledge even exists. Ignoring it won't magical make it go away.

There is nothing in the 16th Amendment stating that "direct taxes on income are not subject to apportionment". The 16th Amendment did not remove the constitutional requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

The 16th amendment explicitly exempts all taxes on income from any apportionment requirement:

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.

You insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements on income tax. The 16th amendment says the otherwise.

The 16th amendment wins.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


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

Strawman. As Eisner makes clear, the power to tax incomes isn't new. The power to tax incomes with no apportionment requirement is what the 16th amendment does.

Oh, and Stanton LOST. The court upheld the lower court's ruling that the mining company he held shares in had to pay income tax.

Here's the full quote, with everything bolded being what you left out.

"by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."​

Again, your own source affirms that the 16th amendment prevented income taxes from being placed in the category of direct taxation. You know this kills your argument. Which is why your quote cut out *just* before this was mentioned by the court.

As I said, your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. Anyone who has an even passing acquaintance with the topic sees that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

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.

Did you even read what you quoted?

"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)

​

" except as applied to income". And your argument fails again. You need to actually read what you're citing. Eisner explicitly recognizes that the 16th amendment exempts income taxes from the apportionment clause. A fact that is reiterated by the Eisner court:

"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 yet you ludicrously insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements. Every court to have ruled on the 16th amendment contradicts you.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're not informed enough to discuss this topic intelligently.

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."

SO SAYS THE COURT!

JWK

 

[Skylar]

Sixteenth 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"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS

And I am a supporter of Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would, unlike Cruz's proposal, actually close down the IRS

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

I already told you I oppose the income tax, which of course means I would also repeal the 16th. Your plan is way better than what we have, but it would be challenging for States like Mississippi to raise per capita revenue at the rate of a California or New York.

The apportioned direct tax is only to be imposed if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption. The fear of the apportioned direct tax having to be imposed if Congress spends more than what is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes would actually encourage each state's congressional delegation while in Washington to avoid deficit spending as doing so would then require each state's congressional delegation to return home with a bill in hand for the their Governor and State Legislature to pay their fair share from their state treasury, or raise additional taxes in the state and then transfer that money into the federal treasury.


JWK

I don't see that in the sixteenth, can you show that?

See what?

JWK

You've claimed that the 16th amendment doesn't lift any apportionment requirement. The 16th amendment says otherwise.

 

[Skylar]

Um ... I put it in red for you, Holmes. You wanted quote marks, not red? Why is that?

Who is Holmes? And what am I wrong about what you posted in red? I have stated numerous things about what you posted in red from our Constitution.

JWK

You said "our Constitution requires any direct tax to be APPORTIONED among the States."

It did when written, but the the sixteenth said income taxes could be levied WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States."

Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Not 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)
​

This is a passage from Eisner that you still refuse to acknowledge even exists. Ignoring it won't magical make it go away.

There is nothing in the 16th Amendment stating that "direct taxes on income are not subject to apportionment". The 16th Amendment did not remove the constitutional requirement that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

The 16th amendment explicitly exempts all taxes on income from any apportionment requirement:

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.

You insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements on income tax. The 16th amendment says the otherwise.

The 16th amendment wins.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:


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

Strawman. As Eisner makes clear, the power to tax incomes isn't new. The power to tax incomes with no apportionment requirement is what the 16th amendment does.

Oh, and Stanton LOST. The court upheld the lower court's ruling that the mining company he held shares in had to pay income tax.

Here's the full quote, with everything bolded being what you left out.

"by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."​

Again, your own source affirms that the 16th amendment prevented income taxes from being placed in the category of direct taxation. You know this kills your argument. Which is why your quote cut out *just* before this was mentioned by the court.

As I said, your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. Anyone who has an even passing acquaintance with the topic sees that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

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.

Did you even read what you quoted?

"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)

​

" except as applied to income". And your argument fails again. You need to actually read what you're citing. Eisner explicitly recognizes that the 16th amendment exempts income taxes from the apportionment clause. A fact that is reiterated by the Eisner court:

"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 yet you ludicrously insist that the 16th amendment didn't lift any apportionment requirements. Every court to have ruled on the 16th amendment contradicts you.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're not informed enough to discuss this topic intelligently.

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."

SO SAYS THE COURT!

JWK

And from your own quote is the reason why they found that the Revenue Act of 1916 didn't apply to pro-rata stock dividends;

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)
​

The Eisner ruling found that pro-rata stock dividends weren't income. No where in the entire ruling does the Eisner court say direct taxes on income must be apportioned. On the contrary, the Einser court explicit recognizes that the 16th amendment removed 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)
​

Your own quotes and your own ruling destroy your entire pseudo-legal argument that direct taxes on income must be apportioned.

There's a reason why every court to rule on the topic has contradicted you. You've got a 100 year record of perfect failure, John.