Another obfuscation and refusal to accept the fact that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned which I have documented for you so many times.
Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) confirmed that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation. The Court states in crystal clear language:
“…by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged…”
Later, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:
A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.
— cut —
Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.
A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”
And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:
The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Why are you so intent on taxing the “property” a working person earns by the sweat of their labor, which you then have no moral objection to transferring to another individual for their personal economic needs? Why do you willingly ignore rights associated with property ownership, especially that of a wage earner, and likewise ignore the protections our Constitution provides to protect those rights?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).[/i][/b]
