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

[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

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 The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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

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

 

[basquebromance]

he's Lyin' Ted.

ha ha ha.

THAT'S HIS NAME!

L! Y! I! N! APOSTROPHE! TED!

Senator Lyin' Ted.

 

[johnwk]

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

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

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

JWK

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

JWK

I've repeatedly shown you the 16th amendment. It says income taxes do not need to be apportioned. You keep saying they do, I keep showing you the sixteenth that they don't. It's a repeating cycle. You really need me to quote it again? I will, but you have to confirm you're going to read it this time first

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

JWK

I've repeatedly shown you the 16th amendment. It says income taxes do not need to be apportioned. You keep saying they do, I keep showing you the sixteenth that they don't. It's a repeating cycle. You really need me to quote it again? I will, but you have to confirm you're going to read it this time first

You can find my quoting the 16th amendment in the following posts:

84, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 117

 

[Stephanie]

lol, don't you conservatives love being told you don't know jack about anyone or anything, and by the lefties who won't believe their (democrat) party has been taken by commies/radicals from walks of life when they are told about that.

 

[kaz]

lol, don't you conservatives love being told you don't know jack about anyone or anything, and by the lefties who won't believe their (democrat) party has been taken by commies/radicals from walks of life when they are told about that.

From my sig

Ronald Reagan: It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so

 

[johnwk]

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

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

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

JWK

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

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


JWK

 

[Skylar]

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

See what in the 16th amendment?

JWK

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

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

JWK

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

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


JWK

You've documented nothing of the sort. Not one source you've ever cited states that direct taxes on incomes are still apportioned under the 16th amendment.

Quite the opposite actually. With your own sources affirming that the 16th amendment removed apportionment on 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)
​

In fact, every court to adjudicate this issue contradicts you. A full century of contradiction which you ignore and pretend never happened.

Alas, we're not obligated to pretend with you.

 

[kaz]

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

See what in the 16th amendment?

JWK

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

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

JWK

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

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


JWK

Not according to the sixteenth amendment

 

[johnwk]

See what in the 16th amendment?

JWK

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

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

JWK

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

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


JWK

Not according to the sixteenth amendment

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

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


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

 

[paulitician]

He's the Establishment Bush Family's boy. He sold out. Go Trump!

 

[thanatos144]

He's the Establishment Bush Family's boy. He sold out. Go Trump!

Thanks for proving that Paulbots have no real values.

 

[PredFan]

It is disappointing to see one of our self-anointed "constitutional conservatives", meaning Ted Cruz, is found to fall far short of constitutional conservatism when it comes to tax reform.

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.

The very purpose of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was to insure that Congress, if and when it decided to enter the States and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax and not the socialist type of tax which Cruz proposes, which is to seek out and place a larger tax burden upon the most productive members of our society. Cruz's tax plan is more in line with what Bernie Sanders would support than what our founders intentionally rejected.

keep in mind that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is still very much part of our Constitution and any “constitutional conservative” knows this.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with an income tax and 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 later in another case dealing with income taxation and 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.

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”.


Cruz’s tax plan intentionally keeps alive the socialist friendly tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins as follows:

“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 failed 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!

JWK


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

This? THIS?

You got one thing; taxes, and on the basis of that one thing, you say he isn't a Constitutional Conservative?

That is just stupid.

 

[thanatos144]

It is disappointing to see one of our self-anointed "constitutional conservatives", meaning Ted Cruz, is found to fall far short of constitutional conservatism when it comes to tax reform.

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.

The very purpose of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was to insure that Congress, if and when it decided to enter the States and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax and not the socialist type of tax which Cruz proposes, which is to seek out and place a larger tax burden upon the most productive members of our society. Cruz's tax plan is more in line with what Bernie Sanders would support than what our founders intentionally rejected.

keep in mind that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is still very much part of our Constitution and any “constitutional conservative” knows this.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with an income tax and 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 later in another case dealing with income taxation and 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.

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”.


Cruz’s tax plan intentionally keeps alive the socialist friendly tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins as follows:

“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 failed 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!

JWK


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

This? THIS?

You got one thing; taxes, and on the basis of that one thing, you say he isn't a Constitutional Conservative?

That is just stupid.

No what is stupid is that he is wrong LOL

 

[kaz]

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

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

JWK

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

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


JWK

Not according to the sixteenth amendment

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

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


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

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Apparently Cruz can read and you can't

 

[johnwk]

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Apparently Cruz can read and you can't

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

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


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

 

[kaz]

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Apparently Cruz can read and you can't

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

Unsubstantiated opinion? I quoted the 16th amendment you stupid nut sack

 

[johnwk]

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Apparently Cruz can read and you can't

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

Unsubstantiated opinion? I quoted the 16th amendment you stupid nut sack

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

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


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

 

[kaz]

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

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration