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

Politics
74

“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)

.As I previously stated, your comment confirms you have absolutely no understanding of American Law, especially when it comes to Eisner and that our current Court cites Eisner to confirm that “taxes on personal property to be direct taxes.”

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

75

Yes, antiquated. Please give some examples of remotely significant rulings over the past 50 years which are based on Eisner v. Macomber. It has been superseded by more recent court findings and is a relic of American law.

76

No. Eisner v. Macomber has not been superseded when it comes to taxes on personal property being viewed as a direct tax.

In 2012, as I have documented for you, our Supreme Court continues “to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes.” See NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, the recent Obamacare case, decided in 2012,

:roll_eyes:

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

77

Really? Have you read Eisner v. Macomber? It was a case about stock dividends. Qualified non-retirement dividends are taxed based on tax bracket and have been for decades. Eisner v. Macomber is antiquated.

There is no federal personal property tax. Why would you even bring that up? It was used as a side note in the 2012 case in order to differentiate from a personal property tax.

Did you just google search for “Eisner v. Macomber” and when you found something posted it in hopes it strengthened your argument when in fact weakened it?

78

You certainly are a funny dude.

You asked me to give some examples of remotely significant rulings over the past 50 years which are based on Eisner v. Macomber and I cited NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, the recent Obamacare case, decided in 2012, which confirmed:
“we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes.” See Eisner v. Macom-ber , 252 U. S. 189–219 (1920).

And now, you deflect to discuss Eisner, rather than admit our current Supreme Court continues to cite Eisner, and views taxes on personal property as being a direct tax.

:roll_eyes:

The fact is, Democrat leaders claim to be advocates for hard working people. If that is so, why do they not promote an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the bread which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor?

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

79

There is no federal personal property tax. Is your whole premise that a non-existent federal personal property tax is unconstitutional because it isn’t apportioned? Do you even have a coherent premise?

Personal property taxes were considered direct taxes long before Eisner and long before the Constitution. The key finding in the case was stock dividends. Using a case to quote a definition of direct tax has nothing to do with the primary finding of the case. Which is antiquated.

80

Seems to me a federal tax calculated from a working person’s earned wages is a tax upon their property.

JWK

“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

81

They don’t want us to know. They already do.

82

That’s your opinion but until they repeal the 16th amendment, it’s a moot point. Even if income tax were a direct tax, it can still be collected without apportionment.

83

No. That is not my opinion. That was stated by our Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court acknowledged a working person’s labor is their property. And we all know a tax upon property is a direct tax and requires apportionment. You just don’t care that hard working people living in our nation’s inner cities are having an unconstitutional federal tax confiscating the property they have in their labor.

JWK

Democrat leaders claim to be advocates for hard working people. If that is so, why do they not promote an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the bread which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor?

84

The Constitution is unconstitutional? Interesting.

85

There is nothing unconstitutional about the requirement that direct taxes are required to be apportioned.

In case you missed it, our Constitution declares: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

86

The 16th amendment amended the apportionment requirement for income taxes. That’s how amendments work. It doesn’t matter if income tax is a direct tax. The Constitution was amended to allow it to be free from apportionment. End of story.

87

So now you are back to making assertions which have already been debunked. The fact is, if a tax on income takes the form of a direct tax, it is still required to be apportioned. This was documented for you IN THIS POST:

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 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 income tax imposed in Eisner was struck down as violating the rule of apportionment!

JWK


”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]

88

No. You remain incorrect. The 16th amendment amended the apportionment requirement for income taxes if they are to be considered direct taxes. You can argue all day that income taxes are a direct tax. Before the 16th amendment maybe you could have argued for apportionment. Now you can’t. The 16th amendment says income taxes aren’t apportioned. That’s the end if it. It overrides the original apportionment clause. That is a function of amendments.

89

Your above comment has been debunked. See Eisner vs Macomber . . . an income tax was struck down because it violated the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

The Court stated:

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 bottom line is, if a tax upon income takes the form of a direct tax, it still requires apportionment, but if the tax is indirect, as confirmed by the 16th amendment, it then can be laid without apportionment.

:roll_eyes:

JWK

90

I’m still waiting for him to opt to not pay these taxes he thinks the government has unconstitutionally assessed to him. Heck I’d like to see the court brief he filed on the matter.

91

You might want to re-read Bromley v. McCaughn. They ruled it wasn’t a direct tax related to property. Property tax and income tax aren’t the same thing, no matter what you want to believe. 16th amendment makes that a moot point anyway. More antiquated Eisner findings. Just can’t shake a case that has been superseded many times over it seems.

92

I’d cheer him on. He’s so confident of the illegality of non-apportioned income taxes, he should make a stand. He can’t lose (in his mind, at least).

93

Modern day conservatism: The amendment process is unconstitutional because it supersedes the original constitution!

At this point, we’re just making ■■■■ up.

  • Amendment XVI

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.