What I acknowledged was the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment as being the law.
And now you ask "What remains to discuss?" I stated that in the title of the thread "Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution", and in the OP:
Seems relatively obvious when considering the above stated FACTS, the contention made by some that today's federal tax on a working person's earned wages may very well violate our federal constitution and has great merit for the following reasons:
Today's federal tax on earned wages is not in harmony with the original objective of adopting the Sixteenth Amendment which was to allow for a federal tax on “unearned” incomes [stocks, bonds, etc.] as can be contrasted from “earned” wages.
Today’s federal tax on a working person’s earned wages takes the form of a direct tax, is not being apportioned, and thus violates the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.
Finally, and in respect of the Sixteenth Amendment and calculating today’s federal tax on earned wages “ . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
Today’s federal tax on earned wages does not follow the set rules laid out in EISNER V. MACOMBER to calculate and distinguish what portion, if any, of a working person’s earn wages falls within the definition of “incomes” as the term is used in the Sixteenth Amendment.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us