Might want to read up on what’s happened since that 1920 case. Capital gains as taxable income has been upheld in court and dividend exceptions are now nearly non-existent. The sixteenth amendment is clear that any income can be taxed without apportionment. You’re welcome to appeal to the federal court system. Good luck.
Not if the tax takes the form of a direct tax as was the case in Eisner. Do you have a memory problem?
JWK
” As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.” ___ BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN (1929)
Perhaps you have problems remembering court cases after 1920, when Eisner v Mancomber took place. The findings have been superseded by United States v. Phellis (1921), Rockerfeller v. United States (1921), Cullinan v. Walker (1923) and more importantly Helvering v. Bruun (1940).
To put it even more plainly…
Abrams v. Commissioner (1986)
Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.
The name of a tax is irrelevant. If a tax takes the form of a direct tax, it is forbidden if direct. As confirmed in the recent Obamacare case:
"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."
JWK
Let’s not forget Joe Biden is the mob’s shakedown candidate, and does not support individuals being free to negotiate their own employment contracts. He wants every American to pay a union boss a monthly kickback fee for the privilege to work in America.
So now we can ignore Supreme Court cases that don’t align with our personal bias?
Andrew Jackson would agree! That’s just their opinion.
Because everyone who isn’t a citizen is illegal?
How Trump Foxcom factory coming. oh wait it never going to be built.
The purpose of the census is to find out how many people are here. Anything that jeopardizes that purpose shouldn’t be in the census. Cons want to make “illegals” feel bad so they like the question being there because their whole agenda is about spite and sticking it to people they don’t like. It’s not a productive agenda.
1 Like
A conservative agenda is about gumming up the works of government. It’s not supposed to be productive. They have been saying this since the 1970s.
You said previously:
Tax on income is not subject to apportionment. This is literally what the 16th amendment says. You can call income tax “direct” or any other name. It doesn’t matter. Still no apportionment.
Why should people who refuse to honestly comply with census LAWS be allowed to stay in the US?
When was the last time a Census law was even used, if ever? Much less pretending that undocumented people, who remain unknown by not completing it, would somehow be punished…
■■■■■ ICE can’t even keep track of 3,000 families when they separate them…
Come back to reality, all this does is make the data collection for everything but that single question far less accurate.
1970 was the last time anyone was prosecuted for a census related crime.
And when you tax a working person’s earned wage, you are really taxing the working person and calculating a direct tax from their property.
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 vs Macomber, decided after the amendment’s passage, 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)
Wrong again. Same stuff. Antiquated Eisner case. Blatant misunderstanding of the simple and straightforward 16th amendment. I urge you to bring your concerns to trial. Please? For the good and entertainment of us all.
Thats not gonna happen. Person lives in a vacuum of time and doesn’t realize out government doesn’t operate the way he thinks it does, not is it ever going to again.
“Antiquated Eisner case”?
Your comment confirms you have absolutely no understanding of American Law. It may come as a surprise to you but our Supreme Court regularly cites what you refer to as antiquated cases. For example, in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, the recent Obamacare case, decided in 2012, Justice Roberts cites McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819).in the second paragraph of his opinion. He goes on to cite Gibbons v. Ogden , 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824). and eventually cites Eisner v. Macomber , (1920). saying
In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. , 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895) . That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macom-ber , 252 U. S. 189–219 (1920).
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)
Fifth column free government cheese! Round them up and deport them all! If disease spreading illegals didn’t want to be separated from their family members and die then they shouldn’t have broken the law! Donald, stop delaying and build the wall to protect us from the government cheese eating diseased horde!
Imagine if the new proposed question was, “Do you own a firearm?”
How many would answer that question accurately?
1 Like
LOL. You continue to list 100+ year old cases and opinions and state I don’t have a grasp on American law? I’ve already given a list of cases that have superseded those dead horse decisions you continue to beat. Maybe you should use those as a starting point in understanding American law.
