MSM distorts, by omission, the purpose for having a census!

[johnwk]

.
SEE: Supreme Court to decide fate of citizenship question on 2020 census


Oral arguments in the case Tuesday will center on how the government can get the most accurate headcount -- and whom the census is supposed to be counting.

The stakes are significant because the census determines the apportionment of seats in Congress and how billions in federal tax dollars are distributed over the next decade.


And there you have it. According to ABC, the purpose of the census is not only to determine the number of each state’s representatives, but “how billions in federal tax dollars are distributed over the next decade.”

What ABC and every Fifth Column news outlet is omitting is, aside from determining each state’s allotted number of representatives, the second purpose for having a census was to determine each state’s share of any direct tax laid by Congress i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation ___ one of the most important protections to insure that states having the largest populations could not use their voting strength in Congress to disproportionately increase the tax burden on the people of states having smaller populations, or increase the burden of taxation on the most financially productive citizens of other states, without proportionately increasing their own share of the federal tax burden.

The two fair share formulas for which the census is conducted are:
.

State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
Population of U.S.
.



State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN
Total U.S. Population


.

The wisdom of tying representative and taxation to each state’s population size was summarized as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54

And in the state ratification debates we find:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

[ATruepatriot]

Yep... It's not just a little trivial thing.

[johnwk]

Yep... It's not just a little trivial thing.

The fact is, the socialist/communist leadership in California want to count every illegal entrant in order to increase their number of representatives in Congress, and increase the government cheese they get from Washington. But they do not want to contribute an apportioned share of our federal tax burden, which is also part of the rule of apportionment.

JWK

[ATruepatriot]

The fact is, the socialist/communist leadership in California want to count every illegal entrant in order to increase their number of representatives in Congress, and increase the government cheese they get from Washington. But they do not want to contribute an apportioned share of our federal tax burden, which is also part of the rule of apportionment.

JWK

They sure do. New Mexico is in on this too.

[acptulsa]

State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = [B]State`s No. of Representatives

So each state has a number if representatives equal to 435 times its population?

State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = [B]STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN

So the constitution requires the taxes collected in a state be proportional to its population? Gee, who makes up the deficit for states who have more people in lower tax brackets?

[johnwk]

So the constitution requires the taxes collected in a state be proportional to its population?

for confirmation of each state's fair share see DIRECT TAX OF 1798 and each State’s apportioned share established by Congress and the rule of apportionment.

JWK

[acptulsa]

Why? It wasn't part of the Constitution, it didn't conform to your claim, and it's not still in effect.

[johnwk]

Why? It wasn't part of the Constitution, it didn't conform to your claim, and it's not still in effect.

Instead of posting, perhaps you ought to first read the Constitution, especially Section 2 of Article 1.

JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

[acptulsa]

Instead of posting, perhaps you ought to first read the Constitution, especially Section 2 of Article 1.

JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

You mean the paragraph that talks about free persons, and three-fifths of all other persons?

[johnwk]

You mean the paragraph that talks about free persons, and three-fifths of all other persons?

Which also "talks about" "representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the various states" . . .

[acptulsa]

Which also "talks about" "representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the various states" . . .

Ever hear of the amendment process? Figure that three-fifths stuff still applies? Figure the apportionment of representatives still works that way, even though the population still goes up but the population of the House does not?

[johnwk]

Ever hear of the amendment process?

Did I miss the adoption of an amendment which repeals the requirement that representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned? If I did, please feel free to post it.




JWK

[acptulsa]

Did I miss the adoption of an amendment which repeals the requirement that representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned? If I did, please feel free to post it.




JWK

That's one hell of a good question. I guess the MSM doesn't want us thinking about that, since no one has obeyed that for over a hundred years.

A better question is why the MSM is pretending population plays a role in disbursements, as though there are no "donor states".

[Sonny Tufts]

Did I miss the adoption of an amendment which repeals the requirement that representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned? If I did, please feel free to post it.




JWK

If you think an income tax is a direct tax, the 16th removed any apportionment requirement for such a tax.

[johnwk]

If you think an income tax is a direct tax, the 16th removed any apportionment requirement for such a tax.

If this and if that. Look in the mirror and if this and that as much as you please.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

If this and if that. Look in the mirror and if this and that as much as you please.


JWK

So why do you keep bringing up the apportionment requirement, which applies only to direct taxes? You've never had the guts to explain why you think the 1943 surtax on incomes was unconstitutional as you claimed in a post on a different thread. I assume it's because you're under the delusion that wages aren't income, a tax on wages must be apportion regardless of the plain language of the 16th Amendment, or some other asinine reason. Perhaps you could enlighten us all by your cogent legal analysis and explain in detain the constitutional infirmities of the 1943 Victory Tax.

[johnwk]

So why do you keep bringing up the apportionment requirement, which applies only to direct taxes? You've never had the guts to explain why you think the 1943 surtax on incomes was unconstitutional as you claimed in a post on a different thread. I assume it's because you're under the delusion that wages aren't income, a tax on wages must be apportion regardless of the plain language of the 16th Amendment, or some other asinine reason. Perhaps you could enlighten us all by your cogent legal analysis and explain in detain the constitutional infirmities of the 1943 Victory Tax.

The name of a tax is irrelevant. If an income tax takes the form of a direct tax, as in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189, it is forbidden unless apportioned. The Victory Tax of 1943 takes the form of a direct tax.



JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

The name of a tax is irrelevant. If a tax takes the form of a direct tax, it is forbidden unless apportioned. The Victory Tax of 1943 takes the form of a direct tax.

I was right -- you believe the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says, or you believe wages aren't income. Well, you're not alone; others have also misread the amendment to support their own bizarre theories. Irwin Schiff, for example, read into the amendment the idiotic notion that "income" is confined to corporate gain, even though there's no mention of corporations anywhere in the Constitution. Others have insisted that the amendment applies only to income from the exercise of a federal privilege or to income earned in the District of Columbia and federal territories and enclaves. Still others claim the amendment doesn't authorize a tax on the income of someone who doesn't "volunteer" or who is a nonresident alien (which according to these wackos, includes anyone born and living in one of the 50 states).

You present yourself as a student of history. If so, you must know that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to overturn the reasoning and the result in the Pollock case and to authorize an unapportioned tax upon investment income (a tax on wage income was already valid). As the Supreme Court later put it,

the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to 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" (158 U.S. 158 U. S. 637) -- 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...

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. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock case was decided -- that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since, 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. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1895) (emphasis added)

[Superfluous Man]

The name of a tax is irrelevant. If an income tax takes the form of a direct tax, as in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189, it is forbidden unless apportioned. The Victory Tax of 1943 takes the form of a direct tax.

Are excise taxes direct taxes?

[johnwk]

The name of a tax is irrelevant. If an income tax takes the form of a direct tax, as in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189, it is forbidden unless apportioned. The Victory Tax of 1943 takes the form of a direct tax.



JWK

I was right -- you believe the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says . . .

The 16th Amendment is crystal clear in its wording and confirms Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. But as much as you wish, it does not declare Congress has power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment. So, if the tax on incomes takes the form of a direct tax, as it did in EISNER v. MACOMBER (1920), it requires apportionment, as stated by the Court.


According to the Supreme Court in Eisner, amendments to the Constitution "must be construed with the . . . clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted." Consequently, in construing the sixteenth amendment to determine if Congress could tax stock dividends, the Court remarked: "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."


Additionally, as indicated in Eisner, it is generally accepted that "an amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify" earlier provisions of the Constitution, unless the intent is unmistakable.


What you are forgetting or intentionally ignoring is, the language of the 16th Amendment makes no mention whatsoever to repeal Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, which states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Capitation, or other direct tax, means no capitation or other direct tax may be laid without apportionment. And in BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN (1929) long after the 16th Amendment’s adoption, the court emphatically declared: ” As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

So, this brings us to the question of how a tax on income in one instance may be indirect and not require apportionment, and in another instant be direct and requires apportionment?


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

The 16th Amendment is crystal clear in its wording and confirms Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. But as much as you wish, it does not declare Congress has power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment. So, if the tax on incomes takes the form of a direct tax, as it did in EISNER v. MACOMBER (1920), it requires apportionment, as stated by the Court.

It's apparent you haven't read Macomber and don't understand the rationale of the majority opinion. The Court held that the stock dividend received by Mrs. Macomber was not income and therefore could not be taxed under the statute then in effect (under the current statute, IRC §305, some stock dividends are taxable). Moreover, the Court has restricted Macomber to its facts:

Nor can we accept respondent's contention that a narrower reading of 22 (a) is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." The Court was there endeavoring to determine whether the distribution of a corporate stock dividend constituted a realized gain to the shareholder, or changed "only the form, not the essence," of his capital investment. Id., at 210. It was held that the taxpayer had "received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id., at 211. The distribution, therefore, was held not a taxable event. In that context - distinguishing gain from capital - the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions."
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430 (1955) (emphasis added)

So if you're going to rely on Macomber, you're forced to the utterly asinine and universally discredited and rejected argument that wages aren't income. Are you ready to do that?

In addition, your citation of Bromley is hopelessly irrelevant. The tax at issue in that case was the gift tax, not the income tax; consequently the application and scope of the 16th Amendment wasn't at issue. However, language in that case that you didn't bother to cite undermines your position:

Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class. Bromley, 280 U.S. at 136 (emphasis added)

The Court later amplified this rule:

If the gift of property may be taxed we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance, Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U.S. 137 , 45 S.Ct. 424, 44 A.L.R. 1454, or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax, and even though the right to receive it, as distinguished from its actual receipt and possession at a future date, antedated the statute. Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property. Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 353 (1945)

What you are forgetting or intentionally ignoring is, the language of the 16th Amendment makes no mention whatsoever to repeal Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

Good grief, not this idiotic argument. Look, with the exception of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, no amendment to the Constitution has contained language explicitly repealing other language in the Constitution that conflicts with the amendment. The 12th Amendment didn't repeal the language in II.1.3. dealing with the election of the Vice President, so do you believe that Hillary Clinton is the legal Vice President? The 13th Amendment didn't repeal the Fugitive Slave Clause (IV.2.3), so is slavery still legal? The 17th Amendment didn't repeal the provisions of I.3.1 dealing with the election of Senators, so is the current Senate illegal?

The bottom line is that direct taxes, other than taxes on incomes, must be apportioned.

[johnwk]

It's apparent you haven't read Macomber .

What is apparent is the following:

According to the Supreme Court in Eisner, amendments to the Constitution "must be construed with the . . . clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."


Additionally, as also indicated in Eisner, it is generally accepted that "an amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify" earlier provisions of the Constitution, unless the intent is unmistakable.


Well, when speaking of intent, when Congress was debating amending our constitution to allow Congress to tax income, the following wording was specifically considered and rejected:


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.” see 44 Cong.Rec. 3377 (1909).


Later, similar wording was considered and adopted, but only after removing "direct taxes" from the amendment’s language 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.” This wording was agreed to on July 5, 1909.


Well, not only was there an intention to remove "direct taxes" from the language of the amendment, but it was voted on and the allowance to "lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment" was in fact rejected.


So yes! Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, but the idea of allowing Congress to lay and collect “direct taxes” on incomes was rejected.




The bottom line is, the 16th amendment does not purport to grant power to Congress to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment. It merely grants power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. So, it is abundantly clear, from the historical record, if a tax on incomes takes the form of a direct tax it violates the limitations of the 16th Amendment. Additionally, since "direct tax" was intentionally removed from the amendment's wording, the following provision of our constitution still stands with full force and effect:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.



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 ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[Sonny Tufts]

Well, when speaking of intent, when Congress was debating amending our constitution to allow Congress to tax income, the following wording was specifically considered and rejected:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.” see 44 Cong.Rec. 3377 (1909).

Later, similar wording was considered and adopted, but only after removing "direct taxes" from the amendment’s language 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.” This wording was agreed to on July 5, 1909.

Well, not only was there an intention to remove "direct taxes" from the language of the amendment, but it was voted on and the allowance to "lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment" was in fact rejected.

So yes! Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, but the idea of allowing Congress to lay and collect “direct taxes” on incomes was rejected.

And what was the reason it was rejected? It has been argued by some scholars that to have adopted the proposed version would have been an implicit acceptance of the view in Pollock that a tax on investment income was a direct tax instead of an excise. In point of fact, immediately after Senator Brown of Nebraska introduced his version with the "direct tax" language, Senator McLaurin of Mississippi suggested that instead the direct tax clauses (except for capitations) simply be eliminated from the Constitution. Brown demurred and said he only intended the exception to the apportionment requirement apply to income taxes. In any event, the final version of the amendment was drafted by the Senate Finance Committee, and there's no record of its deliberations on the issue. Perhaps it though that since it really didn't matter whether the income tax was direct or indirect (i.e., even if it were direct and therefore wouldn't need to be geographically uniform, Congress would never pass a non-uniform income tax) so to avoid any controversy, it simply said that a tax on incomes didn't have to be apportioned, period. The point is that the reason for the omission of Brown's language is unknown, and your assumption that without such language there is a species of income tax that doesn't have to be apportioned is absolutely baseless.

In fact, one could argue that the final language of the amendment is a rejection of the view that a tax on wages is a direct tax. After all, Congress was presumably aware of the Springer case and of the dicta in Pollock that recognized the validity of a tax on wages. Recall also that the 1894 tax act that was invalidated by Pollock expressly taxed wages, so Congress was very familiar with an unapportioned tax on wages. Had Congress intended to require a tax on wages to be apportioned, it would certainly have put language in the amendment to achieve that goal, thereby overturning the holding in Springer. But it didn't.

Suffice it to say that the only issue is whether a tax on wages is a "tax on incomes". If it is, then it doesn't need to be apportioned. So once again, you are forced to argue that a tax on wages isn't a "tax on incomes" -- i.e., that wages aren't income. I can understand why you don't want to go there, but your argument that "taxes on incomes" really means "taxes on some incomes" is a loser as well.

[johnwk]

And what was the reason it was rejected? It has been argued by some scholars . . .

Argue this, and argue that. The important thing is, "DIRECT TAX" was intentionally rejected and removed from the language of the 16th Amendment.

So yes! Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, but if in doing so the tax takes the form of a direct tax, as it did in Eisner, it must be apportioned.

And why is this so?


According to the Supreme Court in Eisner, amendments to the Constitution "must be construed with the . . . clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."


Additionally, as also indicated in Eisner, it is generally accepted that "an amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify" earlier provisions of the Constitution, unless the intent is unmistakable.

So, it is abundantly clear, from the historical record, if a tax on incomes takes the form of a direct tax it violates the limitations of the 16th Amendment. Additionally, since "direct tax" was intentionally removed from the amendment's wording, the following provision of our constitution still stands with full force and effect:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Capitation, or other direct tax, means no capitation or other direct tax may be laid without apportionment.

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 ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)