Stop quoting the Supreme $#@!ing Fraud.
These $#@! bags don't even have the power of judicial review.
Unless we're going to suspend all rational thought and agree that we can give ourselves the authority to do whatever we want
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.
"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."
Alexander Hamilton was a sellout piece of $#@!.
Who said one thing prior to ratification and something else once the states were duped.
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.
"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."
Since English does not appear to be your native language, let me spell it out.Originally Posted by johnwk
"As repeatedly held, this [the 16th Amendment] 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."
This means that the Amendment got rid of any apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes. "removed" = eliminated; got rid of; dispensed with, etc.
"It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned -- or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
This means that regarding apportionment there is to be no distinction between types of income taxes. ALL income taxes were relieved from apportionment, and it would be incorrect to subject some income taxes to apportionment by looking at where the income came from.
Here's another quotes from the Brushaber case: "...recall that, in the Pollock case, insofar as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property -- that is, income from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations" -- its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past...in express terms, the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."
In other words, Pollock recognized that a tax on pay-for-work was an excise and not a direct tax, echoing what had been previously decided in Springer. And income taxes are not subject to apportionment regardless of the income's source.
You seem to be hung up on the fact that the 16th Amendment doesn't contain express language repealing the Direct Tax Clauses with respect to income taxes. So what? There doesn't have to be express repealing language. For example, the 12th Amendment didn't expressly repeal the third paragraph of Article II relating to the election of the President. So are you under the delusion that Donald Trump is the legal Vice President (under the original provision, the runner up became VP)?
I'm done with you.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Na. I prefer the Court spelling it out for you:
“The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)
The Eisner case confirms 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.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment".
JWK
Is it not a self-evident fact our government educational system has produced a staggering number of manipulated and brainwashed, useful idiots?
Yup. You are absolutely correct on that.
In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:
“…the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.” See Page 136:
But those words are in direct conflict with what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution and refers to a “specification of particulars” [those items found beneath Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl.1] which Hamilton goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.
JWK
Is it not a self-evident fact our government educational system has produced a staggering number of manipulated and brainwashed, useful idiots?
Guy.
Please. Try to understand. Take a deep breath.
They are NOT talking about income tax in the Eisner Case. They are talking about investments, rents, and property profits. The quote you provided is about stock dividends. Try to follow the language: "imposed by reason of ownership, and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them..."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/189/
"When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch
The majority held that the stock dividend Mrs. Macomber received wasn't income so that a tax on it wasn't a "tax on incomes" authorized by the 16th Amendment. Accordingly, the case is inapplicable to a situation in which someone receives income, such as pay-for-work.
In addition, his claim "The Eisner case confirms 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.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment" is misleading. The actual quote from the opinion is "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."
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
"This case presents the question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913."
In concluding, the Justice Pitney states:
“The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." ___ Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)
The Eisner case confirms 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.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment".
JWK
No. It is not "misleading" when one reviews the debates during which time the Sixteenth Amendment was framed and debated. I certainly have, and could not find a shred of evidence to indicate the object of the Sixteenth Amendment was to grant power to Congress to lay and collect a direct, un-apportioned tax, on a working person’s earned wages. Quite the contrary is true as I have previously documented. The object was to allow for an un-apportioned tax on un-earned incomes.
Aside from that, the irrefutable fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:
”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 Sixteenth Amendment does not read:
”The 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.”
Keep in mind that on June 17th, 1909, Senator Brown offered the following Joint Resolution (S. J. R. 39) to amend the Constitution relative to TAXES ON INCOMES:
”Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the Constitution of the United States:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ___ SENATE, June 17, 1909, Page 3377
But the wording "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment", etc., never made it into the final version of the Sixteenth Amendment, nor is there any wording in the Constitution repealing the command that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”
With the above in mind it is important to note that under the rules which govern constitutional construction, in situations where there appears to be constitutional provisions that are inconsistent with each other, as is the current case in which there is no repeal of the constitutional requirement that "direct" taxes must be apportioned, while Congress is granted power to lay and collect a taxes on incomes without apportionment, the two provisions must be interpreted to harmonize them in such a manner that effect should be given to each.
In the instant case, harmonizing is to be found in a tax on incomes laid by Congress so long as it does not take the form of a direct tax, which then would require an apportionment.
And how do we carry out the legislative intent of the Sixteenth Amendment and have those with un-earned income contribute a share to the funding of our federal government while likewise preserving the rule that any direct tax must be apportioned?
One way is by laying and collecting a tax on incomes realized under a privilege of doing business as an artificial entity created by government ___ a corporation with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals’ ___ and calculating the tax from profits and gains realized under the privilege.
Taxing “incomes” in this manner, those which are realized under a privilege granted by government and calculated from profits and or gains therefrom, makes the tax indirect and not requiring an apportionment, and thus satisfies the Sixteenth Amendment’s granted power to tax “incomes” without apportionment, while also preserving the constitutional protection requiring any “direct” tax must be apportioned.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
I know, but johnwk isn't going to grasp...
no reason to bump anymore.
"When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch
Truth be told, I took the time to expound upon the subject at great length HERE. Is there something specific in my post you wish to pursue?
JWK
When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.
That's not surprising, since Congress already had the authority to levy an unapportioned tax on wages and personal earnings. Congress was well aware of the Springer decision, which had held that the income tax was in the nature of an excise or duty and it also knew that the Pollock decision had not overruled Springer with respect to a tax on wages and personal earnings. Indeed, Pollock had expressly recognized that such a tax was not a direct tax, and Brushaber later reaffirmed Pollock in this regard:
In its discussion of the severance issue (i.e., could the rest of the 1894 Tax Act be saved if only the part about taxing investment income were stricken), the Pollock majority reiterated its view that an unapportioned tax on pay-for-work was valid:Pollock: "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such..."
Brushaber: "...recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations', its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past."
So it's ludicrous to think the 16th Amendment implicitly overruled Springer and turned a tax on pay-for-work into a direct tax. Congress isn't in the habit of cutting itself off from sources of revenue.According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole.
Your problem with this is that an unapportioned tax on corporations measured by income had already been upheld in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), two years before the 16th Amendment was ratified. Moreover, such a tax would not reach dividends, rents, interest, and other unearned income received by individuals. It's undisputed (except maybe by you) that that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to overturn the result of the Pollock case and subject investment income to an unapportioned tax, but your "harmonizing" would not have that effect and the people receiving such income could continue to enjoy it tax free.
In reality, there is no need to harmonize when you realize that the Amendment rejected the "mistaken theory" of Pollock: that in determining whether an income tax is a direct tax one should look at the source of the income. Once you do this it follows that there is no conflict because an income tax is not a direct tax, regardless of the nature or source of the income.
"by the previous ruling [Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.], it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- 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." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916) (emphasis added)
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Once again you deflect, editorialize and post opinions regarding why the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, and pay no attention to the expressed objectives of the proposed amendment as stated during the Congressional sessions, by members of Congress, when actually debating the Amendment.
For example, Mr. HENRY of Texas says during these debates:
"Therefore the decision, [Pollock] in effect, puts the dollar of the millionaire beyond the pale of being equitably taxed according to his wealth, unless a constitutional amendment be invoked… However, there should be some method by which the untold wealth and riches of this Republic may be compelled to bear their just burdens of government and contribute an equitable share of their incomes to supply the Treasury with needed taxes".
As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law." 44 Cong. Rec. Page, 4414 (1909).
And mention, only a few pages later is made again that, "An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share." 44 Cong. Rec. Page 4420 (1909).
Now, let us note at this point in time that there is a vast distinction between earned wages and, unearned income which was the intended target of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Aside from that, I took the time IN THIS POST to expound upon how the Sixteenth Amendment allows Congress to lay and collect a tax on incomes without apportioning the tax, while at the same time preserving the protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.
JWK
When Federal Reserve Notes were made a legal tender in violation of our Constitution, and a direct un-apportioned tax was imposed upon the people without their consent, America’s free enterprise, free market system was subjugated, and the tools of oppression and thievery were made available to some very immoral and nefariously evil people.
Last edited by johnwk; 03-16-2023 at 07:30 AM.
The Federalist Papers were also penned in an effort to try and convince NYers to ratify the Constitution.
It was part of the contract upon which the states ratified the goddam thing.
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.
"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us