complete gibberish
What does your above post have to do with the fact that direct federal taxes, which are not apportioned, are not legal?
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]
I can assure you, there is no amendment to our federal constitution repealing the Constitution’s 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.”
JWK
The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column social democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.
New Jersey=East Coast California.
What part of this do you not understand.
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.
Did it come before or after Article 1 Section 9?
What you quote has nothing to do with repealing the constitutional command that “direct” taxes are required to be apportioned.
In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. 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, 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."
And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an “excise” tax. but 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 dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:
"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."
The fact is it does not matter what one calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.
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."
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)
None of that negates this.
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.
At all.
Plus Jersey gets to be the garbage dump for NY. 
Kinda sorta.
Populationwise and therefore politically NJ is just an NYC suburb.
And Reality tells us that the 16th Amendment granted the fed’s the ability to lay and collect taxes of any sort, any form, and by any means.
The 16th Amendment is not and never was encumbered by a portion of the constitution which came before it and which it was specifically written to overcome. To suggest otherwise is mindless lunacy.
Do you find comfort in making stuff up, stuff which has been repeatedly rejected by our Supreme Court? The irrefutable fact is, “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned. HERE IS THE EVIDENCE.
As you can see, the Supreme Court disagrees with you opinion. Federal taxes which are “direct”, are still required to be apportioned among the several states. I suggest you stop reading fake news sources.
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)
So you want to ignore the constitution.
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
You are the one ignoring the Constitution in addition to ignoring the repeated times the Supreme Court, after the 16th Amendment’s adoption, confirms that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned. HERE IS THE EVIDENCE
JWK
Slavery is forced labor. Neither welfare or taxation are forced labor. Try again.
Try not respect property rights and see what happens.
In my book, Arizona ain’t too smart.
And here is the constitution.
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
Stop ignoring it because you don’t like it.
The OP is a complete lost cause - he believes (among other bizarre things) the retirees getting Social Security are “free cheese eaters” - but I’m surprised at the confusion you seem to have regarding the definition of slavery and of involuntary servitude. Paying taxes is neither.
Literally no one agrees with you and I’m not about to go through a bunch of back and forths with you on the topic. As I said before why don’t you stop being an internet message forum warrior and not pay the taxes which you believe are unconstitutional. Take a stand or shut the hell up, cause this act has gotten old.
You do realize this is a lost cause right?
